RFR 8130302: jarsigner and keytool -providerClass needs be re-examined for modules

[Wang Weijun]

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Feb 17, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Wang Weijun <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:15 AM, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Can I say -providerClass <NAME> -providerArg <ARG> is equivalent to extending java.security to add “security.provider.N=NAME ARG”?
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I suggest to keep -providerClass and -providerArg only for legacy security provider (i.e. not a service provider to java.security.Provider).
>>> 
>>> For security providers that are converted to service provider:
>>> 
>>> What about updating -provider <NAME>[:<ARG>] option such that (1) it accepts “provider name” only (not class name) and (2) an optional argument?  Although it’s an incompatible change, for legacy security provider, they can still use -providerClass option.
>> 
>> Why must only "provider name”?
> 
> Consistent with security.provider.<N> specified in java.security.
> 
> For security providers in a named module, they must be a service provider.  Security providers can also be a service provider that will help migration.
> 
> security.provider.<N> must specify the name of the security provider which is used to compare with the providers loaded by ServiceLoader.  A security provider can choose to use its fully-qualified classname be the provider name if you like.  Provider::getName is used to match the specified name (see sun.security.jca.ProviderConfig.ProviderLoader)
> 
> If the provider is not found via service loader, i.e. security.provider.<N>=<fully-qualified classname> for legacy security providers in unnamed module, it will call Class.forName and newInstance to construct the security provider instance.  All packages in unnamed modules are exported and so Class::newInstance call will succeed (java.base can read unnamed module in the implementation).

In keytool help, we will write

   -provider <providername>       Add a security provider with its name
     -providerArg <arg>           Optional argument for -provider above
   -providerClass <providerclass> Add a security provider with its class name
     -providerArg <arg>           Optional argument for -providerClass above

This is also what you are thinking about, right?

You think the implementation should strictly match the help above, and I think we can treat -provider and -providerClass the same and perform a try-name-first-try-class-second trick just like what sun.security.jca.ProviderConfig.ProviderLoader::load is doing.

The -providerClass was introduced in https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4938224:

   To avoid confusion, the -provider option should
   be renamed to -providerClass. The -provider should still
   be supported (although not documented) for compatibility.

I still see 3 regression tests using -provider this way and I don't want to break them.

--Max

> 
>> 
>> We can document this way (-providerClass for legacy and -provider for new) and still treat -providerClass and -provider the same (which is what we are doing now) internally. I cannot see any harm and it is compatible.
>> 
>> Even java.security supports both name and class now, right?
>> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> Mandy
> 
>> Thanks
>> Max
>> 
>>> 
>>> Mandy