[rfc][icedtea-web] PR1592 reproducers update

Andrew Azores aazores at redhat.com
Fri Jan 24 13:41:33 PST 2014

On 01/22/2014 10:22 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 01/22/2014 03:37 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>> On 01/22/2014 07:25 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> [2]
>>>>> 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.
>>> J.
>>> [2] dont forget on it in case of new round :)
>> It does die, which is correct IMO.
> yes its the most correct.
> > Clearly it would be wrong if we actually respected that security 
> tag, and I think it would be ambiguous of us and kind of useless to 
> silently ignore the security tag - doing this would probably just end 
> up annoying some app developer. Best to explicitly fail with the 
> launch exception describing the exact problem. If you think it's 
> worthy of a new patch/review round then I can also add that. But how 
> in-depth do you want it to be... ? Just one test to ensure that the 
> security tag causes a failed launch, or repeat all existing tests with 
> an addition security tag, or somewhere in between?
> Yes. its worth to add reproducer with security tag, and one more round 
> of review.

Well, the testcase file has now ballooned to ridiculous proportion.


Andrew A

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: generated-jnlp-plus-securitytags.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 93116 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/attachments/20140124/b9d7402c/generated-jnlp-plus-securitytags-0001.patch 

More information about the distro-pkg-dev mailing list