On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:19:55 GMT, Sean Mullan <mul...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main changes in the JEP and also includes an apidiff of the specification >> changes. >> >> NOTE: the majority (~95%) of the changes in this PR are test updates >> (removal/modifications) and API specification changes, the latter mostly to >> remove `@throws SecurityException`. The remaining changes are primarily the >> removal of the `SecurityManager`, `Policy`, `AccessController` and other >> Security Manager API implementations. There is very little new code. >> >> The code changes can be broken down into roughly the following categories: >> >> 1. Degrading the behavior of Security Manager APIs to either throw >> Exceptions by default or provide an execution environment that disallows >> access to all resources by default. >> 2. Changing hundreds of methods and constructors to no longer throw a >> `SecurityException` if a Security Manager was enabled. They will operate as >> they did in JDK 23 with no Security Manager enabled. >> 3. Changing the `java` command to exit with a fatal error if a Security >> Manager is enabled. >> 4. Removing the hotspot native code for the privileged stack walk and the >> inherited access control context. The remaining hotspot code and tests >> related to the Security Manager will be removed immediately after >> integration - see [JDK-8341916](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8341916). >> 5. Removing or modifying hundreds of tests. Many tests that tested Security >> Manager behavior are no longer relevant and thus have been removed or >> modified. >> >> There are a handful of Security Manager related tests that are failing and >> are at the end of the `test/jdk/ProblemList.txt`, >> `test/langtools/ProblemList.txt` and `test/hotspot/jtreg/ProblemList.txt` >> files - these will be removed or separate bugs will be filed before >> integrating this PR. >> >> Inside the JDK, we have retained calls to >> `SecurityManager::getSecurityManager` and `AccessController::doPrivileged` >> for now, as these methods have been degraded to behave the same as they did >> in JDK 23 with no Security Manager enabled. After we integrate this JEP, >> those calls will be removed in each area (client-libs, core-libs, security, >> etc). >> >> I don't expect each reviewer to review all the code changes in this JEP. >> Rather, I advise that you only focus on the changes for the area >> (client-libs, core-libs, net, ... > > Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 150 commits: > > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 > - Merge > - Update @summary to replace "if the right permission is granted" can be > replaced with "package java.lang is open to unnamed module". > - Remove println about Security Manager. > - Remove unused static variable NEW_PROXY_IN_PKG. > - Remove static variable `DEFAULT_POLICY` and unused imports. > - Remove hasSM() method and code that calls it, and remove comment about > running test manually with SM. > - clientlibs: import order > - warning-string > - java/net/httpclient/websocket/security/WSURLPermissionTest.java: > integrated review feedback in renamed WSSanityTest.java > - ... and 140 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f7a61fce...cb50dfde Comments on `java.security` classes. Also, I'd like to see some clarifications on what "the installed policy" or "the current policy" is. The `ProtectionDomain` mentions this when talking about dynamic permissions. On the other hand, the `Policy` class suggests there is no such a thing. If we do not have this concept no more, some modifications might be needed in `ProtectionDomain`. I also reviewed files in `conf/security`. Everything looks fine except for the `networkaddress.cache.ttl` security property which still references the Security Manager. src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessControlContext.java line 32: > 30: > 31: /** > 32: * AccessControlContext was used with a SecurityManager for access > control decisions I'm not sure how you use this name elsewhere. To me, one either uses "Security Manager" as the name for the technique or `SecurityManager` (inside `{@code}`) as the name for the class. src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessControlContext.java line 141: > 139: throws AccessControlException > 140: { > 141: throw new AccessControlException(""); No message for this exception? src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessControlException.java line 29: > 27: > 28: /** > 29: * Add a sentence like "This was..."? src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Policy.java line 90: > 88: * and subject to removal in a future release. Consequently, this > class > 89: * is also deprecated and subject to removal. There is no > replacement for > 90: * the Security Manager or this class. Don't you need at least one sentence as the body of the class spec here? Something like `Policy was...` which is similar to `AccessController`. src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Policy.java line 374: > 372: * > 373: * @param codesource the CodeSource to which the returned > 374: * PermissionCollection has been granted Can we say this parameter is ignored? I see some other methods said so. Same with the other `getPermissions` and `implies`. src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/SecureClassLoader.java line 1: > 1: /* The class spec still mentions "permissions which are retrieved by the system policy by default". Shall we remove it? Also, `getPermissions` always returns an empty `Permissions` object, do we need to add an `@apiNote` for it? src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Security.java line 489: > 487: > 488: /** > 489: * Adds a provider to the next position available.. Two periods at the end. ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21498#pullrequestreview-2395870667 PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21498#issuecomment-2438672204 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21498#discussion_r1817189896 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21498#discussion_r1817193883 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21498#discussion_r1817194616 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21498#discussion_r1817163586 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21498#discussion_r1817173742 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21498#discussion_r1817050537 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21498#discussion_r1817042605
