[ipv6] RFR: 8224256: test/jdk/java/security/SecureClassLoader/DefineClass.java hardcodes 127.0.0.1

[Sean Mullan]

On 5/22/19 3:33 PM, Arthur Eubanks wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:12 PM Sean Mullan <sean.mullan at oracle.com 
> <mailto:sean.mullan at oracle.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 5/22/19 1:28 PM, Arthur Eubanks wrote:
>      > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:13 AM Daniel Fuchs
>     <daniel.fuchs at oracle.com <mailto:daniel.fuchs at oracle.com>
>      > <mailto:daniel.fuchs at oracle.com
>     <mailto:daniel.fuchs at oracle.com>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     Hi Arthur,
>      >
>      >         18 // For IPSupport
>      >         19 grant {
>      >         20     permission java.net.SocketPermission "localhost:0",
>      >     "listen,resolve";
>      >         21     permission java.util.PropertyPermission
>      >     "java.net.preferIPv4Stack", "read";
>      >         22 };
>      >
>      >     It might be better if these permissions were granted to the
>      >     library only.
>      >
>      > Done.
> 
>     Have you tested that with jtreg? I believe it may not work because of
>     the way the SecurityManager is enabled inside the test (rather than
>     using the jtreg java.security.policy option). You may find that you
>     also
>     need to grant those permissions to jtreg.jar since it is higher in the
>     call stack. If that is the case, you are probably better off granting
>     the permissions to all code, or restructuring the test to use the jtreg
>     java.security.policy option, where jtreg installs its own
>     SecurityManager to grant itself the proper permissions. However, that
>     will require some code changes and granting some additional permissions
>     to the test that are needed (for adding a security provider, etc)
>     before
>     it currently enables a SM. And that is probably more than you want
>     to do
>     for this fix.
> 
>     --Sean
> 
> Tried it directly with jtreg
> $ ~/jtreg/build/images/jtreg/bin/jtreg -jdk:./images/jdk/ 
> ../test/jdk/java/security/SecureClassLoader/DefineClass.java
> and it passes. Verified that removing the newly added permissions makes 
> it fail again.
> There was some discussion on IPSupport and SecurityManagers when 
> IPSupport was first introduced: 
> https://markmail.org/message/vvemfm367ja3qllj

Ok, the fix looks good then to me.

--Sean