Security fixes are back; other fixes can go in. Time for build 18?
Andrew John Hughes
gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Mon Jan 11 17:23:56 PST 2010
2010/1/12 Joe Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
> On 01/11/10 05:03 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> 2010/1/12 Joe Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>
>
> On 01/11/10 03:53 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>
> 2010/1/11 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>
>
> Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>
> 2010/1/8 Joe Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>
>
> 2010/1/7 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>
>
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2009/12/25 Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>:
>
>
>
>
>
> 2009/12/24 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> [big snip]
>
>
>
>
> The com.sun.java.swing package in OpenJDK should have the same
> effective
> compile-time visibility as in Sun JDK.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't know what that is; does this mean
> com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus is hidden in the proprietary JDK6?
> I
> don't mind either way, it just seems that the other plaf packages
> are
> visible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm going to start taking my vacation in earnest now so we can
> finish
> working through this issue early in 2010.
>
> Happy holidays,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Happy new year! Any more thoughts on the above?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, easing back from vacation and donning my fedora and bullwhip,
> I've
> dug
> into what is going on here.
>
> In brief, make/common/Release.gmk has a list of packages to exclude
> from
> the
> ct.sym warning (6476749: "Exclude Swing plaf classes from Sun
> Proprietary
> warning"); from
>
>
>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/raw-file/c00f461c45bc/make/common/Release.gmk
>
> # The compiler should not issue a "Sun Propietary" warning when
> compiling
> # classes in the com.sun.java.swing.plaf packages, since we've
> always
> # allowed, and even advocated, extending them (see bug 6476749).
> #
> # This approach is NOT to be used as a general purpose way to avoid
> such
> # compiler warnings for non-core packages. The correct way is to
> document
> # the packages in NON_CORE_PKGS.gmk, and include them in the
> NON_CORE_PKGS
> # definition.
> #
> # Swing has taken this approach only as a temporary measure to
> avoid
> # the compiler warnings until we can properly document these
> packages.
> # This is covered under 6491853.
> EXCLUDE_PROPWARN_PKGS = com.sun.java.swing.plaf \
> com.sun.java.swing.plaf.windows \
> com.sun.java.swing.plaf.motif \
> com.sun.java.swing.plaf.gtk
>
> In Sun's 6 update train, com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus is included
> on
> that
> package list. Therefore, the test file in question compiles
> without
> warning
> using Sun's 6 update release. The corresponding addition to this
> list
> has
> *not* been made in JDK 7, which is probably just an oversight.
>
>
>
>
>
> In 7, it's now a standard API javax.swing.plaf.nimbus. So you'll
> find
> it listed in make/docs/CORE_PKGS.gmk instead:
>
>
>
>
> Yes, for JDK 7 javax.swing.plaf.nimbus is a core package.
>
>
>
>
> javax.swing.plaf.basic \
> javax.swing.plaf.metal \
> javax.swing.plaf.multi \
> javax.swing.plaf.nimbus \
> javax.swing.plaf.synth \
>
>
>
>
> However, javax.swing.plaf.nimbus being a core package in JDK 7 has no
> direct
> bearing how com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus should be regarding in
> either
> OpenJDK 6 or the 6 update release.
>
> Generally, the "exported external" APIs in the JDK are in the java.*
> and
> javax.* namespaces. These are the APIs that everyone is supposed to
> call,
> etc. Nearly all of the sun.* and com.sun.* API are not in this
> category;
> rather they are only intended to be used by a restricted set of
> parties,
> such as the JDK implementation. The Swing packages listed in
> EXCLUDE_PROPWARN_PKGS are an exception to this rule.
>
> The ct.sym feature is a compile-time proto module system to add an
> enforcement mechanism to this long-standing API policy.
>
>
>
>
> Indeed. I wasn't saying that it should be treated the same. I was
> responding to your point that com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus was not
> added to the exclusion list in OpenJDK7 i.e. it obviously hasn't
> because the package no longer exists in 7 and had to be recreated from
> 6.
>
>
>
>
> I'd support com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus being included in this
> list
> in
> OpenJDK 6 as long as
>
> * The API of the package is the same as in Sun's 6 update release
>
>
>
>
> We have no way of verifying what's in the 6 update release as it is
> proprietary software.
>
>
>
> After hacking together a small annotation processor, I will send the
> source
> for the processor and a list of the signatures of the methods and
> constructors of the types in the Nimbus package in the 6 update
> train.
>
>
>
>
> But what do we do if they don't match? Are we supposed to start
> recreating missing methods from the proprietary 6 code when we have no
> idea how they function?
> The code from 7 is all we have.
>
>
>
> We can evaluate the difference once we see them. Options include not
> exposing the com.sun package in OpenJDK 6 and implementing any missing
> functionality or everything might match and they'll be nothing to do
> :-)
>
>
>
> The Nimbus code in OpenJDK6 is a backport of
> what's in 7, moved back to the com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus
> namespace wihich I believe was used in the proprietary 6 update
> train.
>
> Remember that this is an open-source project; regardless of whether
> arbitrary bits of code are made invisible or not in a unpatched
> build
> of OpenJDK6, anyone can easily read the code and even rip the ct.sym
> hack right back out again.
>
>
>
> Just because something is technically feasible does not mean it is
> advisable. Many technically possible changes are not done so that
> various
> other goals can be met, such as following the Java SE 6
> specification,
> etc.
>
> If one takes steps to circumvent ct.sym or other enforcement
> mechanism,
> it
> is clear who should be responsible for any adverse consequences. For
> example, if someone circumvents ct.sym and then a type being accessed
> is
> changed in a subsequent release, that is a "close not a bug"
> situation.
>
>
>
>
> I didn't say it was advisable. I'm just pointing out that it was a
> weak solution to begin with, and even weaker now that people can study
> and alter the source code rather than just having a binary blob to
> work with.
>
>
>
> Stronger mechanisms are planned for JDK internal implementation classes
> new in JDK 7 where backwards compatibility is not a concern.
>
>
>
> I'm a fan of warning about the use of this code so it's visibly a bug
> and something that should be fixed. I also think it's perfectly
> legitimately to close bugs that refer to code that's not part of the
> public API (though Sun don't produce OpenJDK6 binaries anyway).
> Plenty of other open source projects do that without actively trying
> to stop people using it in the first place.
>
> I don't like the idea of code appearing to disappear as it just causes
> confusion, usually for end users who don't work on the code itself.
> It also impacts debugging, see Andrew Haley's blog on trying to track
> down an issue in javac: http://andrew-haley.livejournal.com/ The very
> fact that you term it 'an enforcement mechanism' suggests treating
> developers as potential criminals rather than as equals.
>
>
>
> There are many enforcement mechanism in the Java platform. The class
> file
> verifier. The type checker in javac. The applet sandbox. The
> security
> model. No criminality need be inferred.
>
>
>
> Additionally, not doing this would make
> OpenJDK6 different from the proprietary release -- as you mention
> above, it doesn't mask this package.
>
>
>
>
> Because the proprietary release does not unmask this package, if
> OpenJDK
> 6
> also unmasks this package, IMO it is important that the OpenJDK 6 API
> match
> the API exposed in the proprietary release.
>
>
>
>
> I'm confused here -- does the proprietary JDK6 make this package
> visible or not?
>
>
> The com.sun.* nimbus package is visible in the proprietary JDK6
> starting
> (I assume) in 6u10 when Nimbus was added; it is visible in 6u17 where I
> was
> able to successfully compile your test program.
>
>
> You seemed to be saying earlier that it did and your
> idea of checking what the API is using an annotation processor also
> suggests this.
>
>
>
> Correct.
>
>
>
> I agree it's important they match. I just don't see what we can do if
> they don't.
>
>
>
> Let's see how far the two packages are from an alpha rename and
> evaluate
> our options.
>
>
>
> Greetings.
>
> Before writing an annotation processor, I tried a simple diff. Good
> news!
> To make the API signatures of the com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus
> packages
> match in OpenJDK 6 and the proprietary JDK the following two classes in
> OpenJDK 6 need to be made public:
>
> LoweredBorder.java
> TableScrollPaneCorner.java
>
> So I will approve the following change
>
> * The two classes above are changed to be public
> * The package in question is added to the EXCLUDE_PROPWARN_PKGS list in
> make/common/Release.gmk
>
> as long as Kelly also reviews any build impact.
>
>
> Makefile change seems harmless.
>
> -kto
>
>
>
> With that, consider the change approved; please push using bug id 6915980
> "Do not issue build warnings for use of com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus."
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>
>
>
> Pushed:http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/f6d8d0c0e6ad
>
> There's another Nimbus patch that should be backported before b18:
>
> # HG changeset patch
> # User peterz
> # Date 1258555006 -10800
> # Node ID fc3997fd1bcebf74031fdc43d44b371e4be3d29b
> # Parent 4f0275ea56fdb3f8199d16951954cfee80f931c2
> 6882917: Nimbus and DefaultTableCellRenderer: must start with normal
> background
> Reviewed-by: rupashka
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/fc3997fd1bcebf7403
>
>
>
> You're approved to push a port of this fix assuming the patch applies
> cleanly.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>
>
Done: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/5f6bca79e784
--
Andrew :-)
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
More information about the jdk6-dev
mailing list