[rfc][icedtea-web] PR1592 reproducers update

Jiri Vanek jvanek at redhat.com
Wed Jan 22 04:25:55 PST 2014

On 01/21/2014 03:43 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
> On 01/21/2014 06:16 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> On 01/20/2014 09:49 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>>> On 01/20/2014 11:07 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>> On 01/09/2014 08:06 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>>>>> On 01/09/2014 11:17 AM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/03/2014 02:43 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>>>>>>> Updated PR1592 tests, using a custom reproducer rather than split simple/signed. This allows
>>>>>>> method calls to be made in the normal way as well as via reflection. JNLP includes both
>>>>>>> applications and applets now, and they close properly as well.
>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Andrew A
>>>>>> Went back over this and realized one of the tests was written wrong. The
>>>>>> assertAccessControlException helper method in the testcase file is now a little stricter about the
>>>>>> type of AccessControlException (so that the exceptions due to applets not being allowed to call
>>>>>> System.exit don't falsely fulfill this assertion), and MixedSigningAppletHelper.attackDoPrivileged
>>>>>> now properly calls MixedSigningAppletSigned#testSignedReadPropertiesDoPrivileged, as it should
>>>>>> have been doing. In this case, the Unsigned JAR actually *is* meant to be able to retrieve data
>>>>>> from the Signed JAR (as is the point of the AccessController.doPrivileged call), so the testcases
>>>>>> now expect this test to successfully read from System.getProperty, rather than receive an
>>>>>> AccessControlException. However, the tests still verify that in situations where the Signed JAR
>>>>>> has a method call that involves a privileged action *without* being placed inside a doPrivileged
>>>>>> call, an AccessControlException will be thrown if the Unsigned code attempts to access it, as
>>>>>> expected.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Sorry, please ignore the previous patch. The extra changes were not made based on the most recent
>>>>> other changes. Attached are the properly rebased patches, also split into three as they were
>>>>> originally.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Thanx for ping.
>>>> There is really many of jnlps which are nearly similar. Maybe better idea can be to have one template, and generate all the rest from it?
>>>> I altready did this - and generated them ion BeforeClass.
>>>> What do you think?
>>> I like this idea, but I didn't know we were okay with having reproducers do tricks like this ;)
>>> Thanks,
>> On seriosu flaw: you have "private static final ServerAccess server = new ServerAccess();" declard. by this you are owerwritting the one in BrowserTest, so no browser test will work, and wil fial 'can not lunch unset browser".
>> Just remove this line.
> Oops, right.
>> Also - non of the jnlp have security element specified. It i s intentional?? I thought it was an reason for this test to be redone.
>> After fixed first, and explined second, ok to head.
>> J.
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2013-December/025635.html
> The JNLP spec seems a little bit ambiguous here - it seems to say that "All JARs must be signed" if requesting All-Permission, but doesn't explicitly say if full signing is required to be able to request permissions at all. But as I explained in that other thread, I think it's correct to use the security tag when you have full signing, and not correct to use it when you have partial signing.

Hmhm. And what should itw do with such an malicious (security tag) file and contne (not all jars signed)t? It should die...

And thats exactly what the reproducers should check.

Or not?

So from my side (and after reading the [1]) I'm +1 to add the tests.


[2] dont forget on it in case of new round :)

More information about the distro-pkg-dev mailing list