On 2/26/25 10:40 AM, Frederic Thevenet wrote:
Hi Erik,
Thanks for your comments.
As a matter of fact, we at Red Hat also face similar constraints that
prevent us from being able to sign the files on the machine that build
them (and I suspect this is quite common-place).
My initial idea to accommodate that is to have the jdk build invoke a
user supplied script (via a --with configure argument) rather than
having it call signtool directly, so as to provide a way for everyone
to easily plug their specific configuration and logic (in our case,
the script uploads the file to sign to the signing machine and
download it once it is done, in a synchronous fashion).
In effect, it's just a hook that is invoked after the native linker
has been called.
I have created a PR[1] where you can see what I've done in details.
That's a small and unintrusive solution. Our solution is a lot more
involved as I figured I wanted to expose a set of top level "phase"
targets for signing for each module, so that building libs or launchers
can be done independently from signing (e.g. java.base-libs,
java.base-launchers and java.base-sign). This necessitates a separate
set of output directories for signed libs and signed launchers, where we
first build like normal to the regular output dirs and then the sign
target copies and signs binaries into the *-signed outputdirs, and when
building jmods, we need to pick up the files from those *-signed
directories. It's quite messy, so I've kept it all in our internal
makefile extensions. I'm also questioning the usefulness of this
flexibility given how much complexity it adds, so your proposal is
probably preferred.
That said, I'm wondering if we could make it a bit more generic and not
define it as "windows" specific? Then perhaps bake in the macos signing
logic into this as well. The default implementation could be using the
native OS tools while there is a configure option to completely replace it.
/Erik
Thanks,
Frederic
[1] https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23807
On 26/02/2025 15:29, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
I think this is a reasonable idea and you are welcome to implement
it. At Oracle we have been solving this using custom extension
makefiles. That will unfortunately not change with this proposal as
our signing process does not involve direct access to the native
tools of the OS. Perhaps this implementation could be made plug-able
enough so that we could leverage it, I'm not sure. What I'm trying to
say is that we are not against this, but we are also not inclined to
invest resources into it.
/Erik
On 2/26/25 12:52 AM, Frederic Thevenet wrote:
Hi,
I would like to start a discussion about adding built-in support for
code signing native executable file and dynamic library on Windows
directly as part of the JDK build, in a similar fashion to what
already exists for macOS.
Most, if not all vendors already ensure that every native executable
files and dynamic libraries that are part of the binary builds of
OpenJDK that they distribute to their customers for the Windows
platform are digitally signed using a set of Microsoft APIs and
tools called Authenticode[1].
Since this is not a part of the existing JDK build system, however,
this means that each vendor has had to come up with their own way to
integrate the code signing step into their build pipeline.
As the shape of the JDK binary deliverable evolved to accommodate
features like modules, signing binaries as an after-the-fact process
has gradually become more complicated and error prone.
For instance, with the introduction of JEP 493 (Linking Run-Time
Images without JMODs)[2], adding a digital signature to files after
jlink runs as part of the build to create the JDK image when the new
'--generate-linkable-runtime' feature is enabled will cause any
subsequent uses of jlink from this image to fail with a
"Error:<xxxx> has been modified" error.
The solution to that particular problem is to ensure that the
signature is applied before jlink generates the checksums it will
later use to detect , and I believe the best way to achieve that is
to integrate code signing as an option in the jdk build process.
This would also offer vendors who decide to opt into using this new
feature to potentially simplify their overall build process.
For instance, this could get rid of extra steps such as filtering
out dlls that are part of the bundle but were not built as part of
the jdk (e.g. the Microsoft C and C++ runtime redistributables), or
making sure that 'exe' and 'dll' files packaged in the .jmod files
are also signed.
As a stated before a very similar option already exists for code
signing on the macOS platform, which further reinforce my thinking
that such a feature would make sense for Windows as well.
I have drafted a prototype for this and would be happy to create JBS
issue and submit a PR to move this forward, provided there is interest.
Thanks,
Frederic Thevenet (fthevenet)
[1]
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/internet-explorer/ie-developer/platform-apis/ms537359(v=vs.85)
[2] https://openjdk.org/jeps/493
