[8] Request for review: 8016848: javax_security/auth/login tests fail in compact 1 and 2 profiles

[Xuelei Fan]

The fix looks fine.

BTW, I think the relationship between
javax.security.auth.login.Configuration and
javax.security.auth.login.ConfigurationSpi is not that instinctive in
the implementation.  For example, the impl of
Configuration.getAppConfigurationEntry() should be able to use the impl
of ConfigurationSpi.engineGetAppConfigurationEntry(). And the provider
should only need to extend ConfigurationSpi rather than the
Configuration class.  It would be nice to re-factoring the code if no
other concerns.

Xuelei

On 8/2/2013 12:48 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Could you please review my fix for 8016848:
> 
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mullan/webrevs/8016848/webrev.00/
> 
> bug: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8016848
> 
> This is a bug because
> javax.security.auth.login.Configuration.getConfiguration() throws a
> ClassCastException when run with the compact1 or compact2 profiles.
> 
> This is because the default Configuration object that is returned is not
> in the compact1 profile. The default Configuration is specified by the
> "login.configuration.provider" security property (in the Java security
> properties file). This property is currently set to
> com.sun.security.auth.login.ConfigFile which is not in the compact1 or
> compact2 profiles
> 
> The fix is to change the default value of the
> "login.configuration.provider" security property to
> sun.security.provider.ConfigFile, which will be a new class that is
> essentially a copy of com.sun.security.auth.login.ConfigFile. However,
> because it is in the sun.security.provider package, it will be in all
> profiles. We will not remove the com.sun.security.auth.login.ConfigFile
> class as there may be some applications directly using it.
> 
> noreg-jck as there is an existing JCK test for this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sean