FutureTask.cancel(true) should run thread.interrupt within doPrivileged
Peter Levart
peter.levart at gmail.com
Wed Oct 2 16:49:31 UTC 2013
Hi Martin,
If you want to optimize for without-security-manager case, then it would
be better this way:
private static void privilegedInterrupt(Thread t) {
if (System.getSecurityManager() == null) {
t.interrupt();
} else {
PrivilegedAction<Void> doInterrupt =
() -> { t.interrupt(); return null; };
AccessController.doPrivileged(doInterrupt);
}
}
...and no security exception catching. This way you don't trigger double
security checks for case with-security-manager and not enough permission...
Regards, Peter
On 10/02/2013 06:29 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> FutureTask.cancel(true) invokes thread.interrupt on the thread (if any)
> currently running the task.
> This should succeed even if modifyThread permission is denied by the
> security manager.
>
> Here's a proposed fix for jdk8+:
>
> --- src/main/java/util/concurrent/FutureTask.java 15 May 2013 02:39:59 -0000
> 1.103
> +++ src/main/java/util/concurrent/FutureTask.java 2 Oct 2013 16:25:23 -0000
> @@ -132,6 +132,12 @@
> return state != NEW;
> }
>
> + private static void privilegedInterrupt(Thread t) {
> + java.security.PrivilegedAction<Void> doInterrupt =
> + () -> { t.interrupt(); return null; };
> + java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(doInterrupt);
> + }
> +
> public boolean cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning) {
> if (!(state == NEW &&
> UNSAFE.compareAndSwapInt(this, stateOffset, NEW,
> @@ -142,7 +148,11 @@
> try {
> Thread t = runner;
> if (t != null)
> - t.interrupt();
> + try {
> + t.interrupt();
> + } catch (SecurityException e) {
> + privilegedInterrupt(t);
> + }
> } finally { // final state
> UNSAFE.putOrderedInt(this, stateOffset, INTERRUPTED);
> }
More information about the security-dev
mailing list