RFR: 6983726: remove Proxy from MethodHandleProxies.asInterfaceInstance SAM conversion

[Chen Liang]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 17:51:27 GMT, Mandy Chung <mchung at openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> The interface access may be problematic: A non-exported interface Class object can be obtained via Reflection inspection on exported types, such as java packages and jdk.internal packages.
>>> 
>>>     * In that case, it might not be of best interest to create an interface, but I don't think the current asInterfaceInstance API rejects such creations either.
>> 
>> See the Javadoc: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/13197/files#diff-6de80127c851b1b0ba6b2ab0a739ffae803187028a721d4a28cd47fb17b1bbcdL64-L65
>> 
>> As this API was added in Java 7, `public` access was easy. W.R.T. modules, no changes have been made to this API.  
>> The (previously) underlying `java.lang.reflect.Proxy` does not even require that.
>> 
>> @liach  Can you please test calling `MethodHandleProxies.wrapperInstanceTarget(MethodHandleProxies.asInterfaceInstance(Runnable.class, MethodHandles.zero(void.class)))` **with an installed `SecurityManager`**?
>> Also with an interface in an untrusted protection domain, for example:
>> 
>> 
>> public interface Test {
>>     void run();
>>     public static void main(String[] args) {
>>         System.out.println(MethodHandleProxies.wrapperInstanceTarget(MethodHandleProxies.asInterfaceInstance(Test.class, MethodHandles.zero(void.class))));
>>     }
>> }
>> 
>> also with a `SecurityManager` (`-Djava.security.manager` as VM argument).
>
>> @DasBrain Thanks for the recommendation to test with SecurityManager, added a test and found two places that needs to do privileged indeed.
> 
> What operations require the security permission check?   I suspect some doPrivileged may be missing in the ClassFile API implementation.

Also, @mlchung Mandy, where would jtreg place the dumped class files with the new class file dumper? I didn't find it within test-support directory.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13197#issuecomment-1499435607