RFR: 8145337: [JVMCI] JVMCI initialization with SecurityManager installed fails: java.security.AccessControlException: access denied

[Doug Simon]

> On 1 Feb 2017, at 20:54, Sean Mullan <sean.mullan at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Couple of comments:
> 
> - jdk.vm.ci is already loaded by the boot loader so it is implicitly granted AllPermission and does not need an entry in default.policy.

Thanks - I removed it.

> - all internal APIs in the jdk.vm.compiler module will now be restricted by default by SecurityManager::checkPackageAccess(), so if you have any code or tests running with a SecurityManager that are accessing internal APIs in the jdk.vm.compiler module, you will need to grant them an appropriate "accessClassInPackage" RuntimePermission in addition to any --add-exports option you are using to break through encapsulation.

Vladimir, does the AOT need to run with a SecurityManager and if so, I assume the qualified exports from jdk.vm.compiler to jdk.aot will allow it to run without needed an extra policy file?

-Doug

> On 2/1/17 6:07 AM, Doug Simon wrote:
>> I’ve reworked the webrev as requested to make jdk.vm.compiler a non-upgradeable platform module, this allowing it to be mentioned in default.policy:
>> 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dnsimon/8145337/
>> 
>> -Doug
>> 
>>> On 30 Jan 2017, at 22:53, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Doug Simon <doug.simon at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 30 Jan 2017, at 21:55, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Doug Simon <doug.simon at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’ve extended the webrev with that change - please re-review:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dnsimon/8145337_make/webrev
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks. Is that a “Reviewed”?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sorry. I only noticed now that you added this to UPGRADEABLE_MODULE.   Please add it only to PLATFORM_MODULES list instead.
>>> 
>>> Making it an upgradeable module is a separate issue.  I suggest you reopen JDK-8171448.  Specifically, since upgradeable modules are not tied with java.base, our goal for JDK 9 is to eliminate qualified exports from JDK modules to upgradeable modules, e.g. JDK-8170116, JDK-8166745, JDK-8161549.
>>> 
>>>> I think I should get at least one sign-off from the security team.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hope Sean will review this one.  Please send an updated webrev.
>>> 
>>>> Also, since this is effectively making jdk.vm.compiler an upgradeable module,
>>> 
>>> No it does not.
>>> 
>>>> what’s the implication for it being a hash-checked module?
>>> 
>>> When a module M is recorded in the ModuleHashes attribute of java.base, the runtime will check if module M resolved in the graph matches the one tied with java.base when created at build time; if not, it will fail.  If an upgradeable module
>>> 
>>>> It seems like these changes effectively achieve what I was requesting with https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171448.
>>> 
>>> JDK-8145337 is about the security permission.  It’s better to separate this review from JDK-8171448.
>>> 
>>> Mandy
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Doug
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Strangely, there was no existing declaration of jdk.vm.compiler in Modules.gmk.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Default is to be defined by the application class loader.  The build will find all modules from the source. There is no need to list all modules.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> BTW, I never answered your question:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "How does JVMCI call out to jdk.vm.compiler?  does it load classes using Class::forName with the system class loader?”
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It uses JVMCIServiceLocator[1] which is a mechanism built on the standard ServiceLoader.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the pointer. That confirms my understanding that loads the service providers using the system class loader.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mandy
>>