RFR (JAXP) JDK-8067170: Enable security manager on JAXP unit tests

[Daniel Fuchs]

On 22/07/16 10:15, Frank Yuan wrote:
> Hi Daniel
>
> Thank you very much for your review and the comments!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Fuchs [mailto:daniel.fuchs at oracle.com]
>> Subject: Re: RFR (JAXP) JDK-8067170: Enable security manager on JAXP unit tests
>>
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> I see that in order to be able to run the tests, you were forced
>> to add a few permissions that the test/test infrastructure need
>> to setup things:
>>
>>   107         addPermission(new SecurityPermission("getPolicy"));
>>   108         addPermission(new SecurityPermission("setPolicy"));
>>   109         addPermission(new RuntimePermission("getClassLoader"));
>>   110         addPermission(new RuntimePermission("createClassLoader"));
>>   111         addPermission(new RuntimePermission("setSecurityManager"));
>>   112         addPermission(new RuntimePermission("createSecurityManager"));
>>   113         addPermission(new RuntimePermission("modifyThread"));
>>   114         addPermission(new PropertyPermission("*", "read, write"));
>>   115         addPermission(new ReflectPermission("suppressAccessChecks"));
>>   116         addPermission(new RuntimePermission("setIO"));
>>   117         addPermission(new RuntimePermission("setContextClassLoader"));
>>   118         addPermission(new RuntimePermission("accessDeclaredMembers"));
>>
>> These are quite powerful permissions, and adding them by default
>> also means that you might miss a bug - if e.g. a doPrivileged is
>> missing somewhere in the JAXP code when jaxp tries to e.g. get/create
>> a classloader, or read a system property, you might not see
>> it.
> Yes, I agree completely. I would control the permission assignment more tightly:
> 1. only allow the following necessary permissions in default:
>     addPermission(new SecurityPermission("getPolicy"));
>     addPermission(new SecurityPermission("setPolicy"));
>     addPermission(new RuntimePermission("setSecurityManager"));
> 2. other permissions in current default set are commonly used for the tests, so I would add more Policy classes like existing
> FilePolicy, etc.
>   //ClassLoaderPolicy, an individual test may only require some of them, but I would put them in only one class if you agree
>     addPermission(new RuntimePermission("getClassLoader"));
>     addPermission(new RuntimePermission("createClassLoader"));
>     addPermission(new RuntimePermission("setContextClassLoader"));
>
>   // PropertyPolicy, there are various properties needed by the tests, I would not classify them further...
>     addPermission(new PropertyPermission("*", "read, write"));
>
>   //Reflection permissions, jtreg may require them in deed, so I may add them in default set
>     addPermission(new ReflectPermission("suppressAccessChecks"));
>     addPermission(new RuntimePermission("accessDeclaredMembers"));
>
>   //other permissions are used in less tests, I may use tryRunWithTmpPermission instead of Policy class
>     addPermission(new RuntimePermission("setIO"));
>     addPermission(new RuntimePermission("createSecurityManager"));
>     addPermission(new RuntimePermission("modifyThread"));
>
> How about you think?

It would definitely improve things - but then all the classes
in the test that runs with this new policy class will inherit
from these permissions as well. This may or may not be an issue.
(I confess I haven't looked at all the webrev ;-()


>> I had a similar issue when writing logging test, were I wanted
>> to temporarily disable permission checking in the middle of a test
>> to perform an infrastructure configuration.
>>
>> So what I did is use an ThreadLocal<AtomicBoolean> to temporarily
>> disable permission checking - which allows me in my tests to do things
>> like:
>>
>> boolean before = allowAll.get().get();
>> allowAll.get().set(true);
>> try {
>>     do something that requires a permission
>> } finally {
>>     allowAll.get().set(before);
>> }
>>
> JAXPTestUtilities.tryRunWithTmpPermission is similar with this, see the example:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fyuan/8067170/webrev.01/test/javax/xml/jaxp/unittest/stream/XMLEventReaderTest/Bug6555001.java.sdiff.htm
> l

Yes that part looks fine.

cheers,

-- daniel

>> My implementation of Policy::implies also checks for
>>
>> if (allowAll.get().get()) return true;
>>
>> This allows me to control more tightly the set of permissions
>> I want my test to run under, while still being able to
>> perform any action I want to set up things without having
>> to give the same permission to all.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> -- daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22/07/16 07:59, Frank Yuan wrote:
>>> According to Amy's suggestion, re-generate a webrev http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fyuan/8067170/webrev.01/ as well as fix some
> issues,
>>> please check.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Amy Lu [mailto:amy.lu at oracle.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 5:42 PM
>>>> To: Frank Yuan; 'core-libs-dev'
>>>> Subject: Re: RFR (JAXP) JDK-8067170: Enable security manager on JAXP unit tests
>>>>
>>>> On 7/18/16 5:32 PM, Frank Yuan wrote:
>>>>> Btw, I moved internaltest into unittest because it's unnecessary to separate them.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you'd like to regenerate the webrev with hg move for those files?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Amy
>>>
>>>
>
>