RFR: 8327218: Add an ability to specify modules which should have native access enabled [v2]

[Jaikiran Pai]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:44:10 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlahoda at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Currently, JDK modules load by the bootstrap and platform ClassLoaders are automatically granted the native access. I am working on an upgrade of JLine inside the `jdk.internal.le` module, and I would like to replace the current native bindings with FFM-based bindings (which are now somewhat provided by JLine). But, for that, native access is needed for the `jdk.internal.le` module. We could possibly move the module to the platform ClassLoader, but it seems it might be better to have more control over which modules have the native access.
>> 
>> This patch introduces an explicit list of modules that will automatically be granted the native access. Note this patch is not yet intended to change the end behavior - the list of modules granted native access is supposed to be the same as modules in the boot and platform ClassLoaders.
>
> Jan Lahoda has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Apply suggestions from code review
>   
>   Co-authored-by: ExE Boss <3889017+ExE-Boss at users.noreply.github.com>
>   Co-authored-by: Maurizio Cimadamore <54672762+mcimadamore at users.noreply.github.com>

Some of the files updated in this PR need a copyright year update.

src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/module/ModuleBootstrap.java line 817:

> 815:                 JLA.addEnableNativeAccessToAllUnnamed();
> 816:             } else if (!JLA.addEnableNativeAccess(layer, name) && shouldWarn) {
> 817:                 warnUnknownModule(ENABLE_NATIVE_ACCESS, name);

Should we instead warn irrespective of whether or not it's user configured native access module name or a module name configured in JDK's build configuration? Or are the build misconfiguration in the `NATIVE_ACCESS_MODULES` expected to be caught much earlier in some other place?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18106#issuecomment-1978836356
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18106#discussion_r1512869279