[Proposal] Add code signing on Windows to the JDK build system

Mon Mar 24 11:24:39 UTC 2025

Hi,

I have reworked my PR so that using the signing hook is no longer 
restrained to a specific platform.

Please note that I have not touched the current code signing 
implementation for macOS; to me, it seems simpler to have both options 
live side by side, at least for the time being.

If you feel that this is moving into the right direction, I'm thinking 
it might be time to remove the draft status on the PR and continue our 
discussion on the subject over there. Wdyt?

Thanks,
Frederic

On 13/03/2025 10:39, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> On 2025-03-11 20:29, Frederic Thevenet wrote:
>
>> Hi Magnus,
>>
>> As mentioned before, the core idea here is really just providing a 
>> hook for a script to be invoked after the native linker has been called.
>> So while thinking about making this more generic and not Windows 
>> specific, it struck me that it might in fact be desirable to also 
>> drop the "signing" notion from this altogether and instead consider 
>> it a way to extend to the build system by plugging in custom scripts? 
>> And maybe extend it with other strategically placed hooks?
>>
>> Do you think this is a direction worth exploring further? Or that the 
>> original, more focused scope is preferable?
>
> Hm, that is definitely an interesting take. I'm a big fan of 
> "right-sizing" generalization; I think both too much and too little 
> generalization is detrimental. My gut feeling right now is that we 
> should keep this focused on what it is, a way to allow signing. It 
> will make the functionality discoverable by other parties that would 
> like to add their own signing script; a general "hook" system might 
> not. But it's good to keep in mind in case any future, non-signing 
> needs arise.
>
> I was more thinking along the lines that the current macOS signing 
> could be considered/rewritten in terms of a "signing hook", with the 
> exception that we also ship a default implementation alongside in the 
> build system. If we do that right, we could probably retrofit Oracle's 
> internal macOS signing logic into the same framework, which would be 
> nice. But then again, that is definitely feature creep wrt to your 
> original request. So maybe we can come back and revisit that thought 
> later.
>
> /Magnus
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Frederic
>>
>>
>> On 07/03/2025 16:49, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>> Hi Frederic,
>>>
>>> I think your proposal makes sense, and as Erik says, the patch is 
>>> very unobtrusive.
>>>
>>> I'm not at all sure if it is even possible, but if the signing logic 
>>> for macOS and Windows can be sort of unified and made more abstract, 
>>> that would certainly be a win.
>>>
>>> /Magnus
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2025-02-26 20:46, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Frederic Thevenet
Senior Software Engineer - OpenJDK
Red Hat France <https://www.redhat.com>
BAF5 C2D2 0BE0 1715 5EE1 0815 2065 AD47 B326 EB92