Thank you Sean for reviewing!
With kind regards,
Ivan
On 9/27/19 7:20 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
Hi Ivan,
The fix looks good. Good catch.
--Sean
On 8/30/19 7:32 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
In the two implementations of
PermissionCollection.implies(Permission), all the permissions are
traversed, and their corresponding bit mask are checked.
For example, here's a snippet from FilePermission.java:
int desired = fperm.getMask();
int effective = 0;
int needed = desired;
for (Permission perm : perms.values()) {
FilePermission fp = (FilePermission)perm;
if (((needed & fp.getMask()) != 0) &&
fp.impliesIgnoreMask(fperm)) {
effective |= fp.getMask();
if ((effective & desired) == desired) {
return true;
}
needed = (desired ^ effective);// <<< should be
(desired & ~effective)
}
}
Here, if a permission's mask `fp.getMask()` intersects with `needed`,
but does not fully cover all the needed bits, the variable `needed`
is updated as XOR of desired and effective. This can raise a
not-really-needed bits in the `needed` mask, so that for all
subsequent permissions from the collection with that unneeded bits in
the mask, an expensive fp.impliesIgnoreMask(fperm) will be executed.
The fix does not change the behavior, but helps avoid unnecessary
calls to impliesIgnoreMask().
Would you please help review a trivial fix?
BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8230415
WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8230415/00/webrev/
Thanks in advance!
--
With kind regards,
Ivan Gerasimov
