RFR 8168075: Custom system class loader + security manager + malformed policy file = recursive initialization

[Wang Weijun]

Is there a valid case where a security manager is created but not set?

--Max

> On Jan 12, 2560 BE, at 7:18 AM, Claes Redestad <claes.redestad at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> On 2017-01-11 15:27, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> Hi Adam,
>> 
>> On 01/11/2017 02:34 PM, Adam Petcher wrote:
>>> Please review the following bug fix:
>>> 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~apetcher/8168075/webrev.00/
>>> 
>>> This fixes a bug in which a permission check would try to load
>>> resources while the system class loader is being initialized.
>>> Resources cannot be loaded at this time, so this change ensures that
>>> the resources are loaded earlier.
>>> 
>> 
>> couldn't this be done in System.setSecurityManager rather than in a
>> static block
>> in SecurityManager?
>> 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/scratch/8168075.alt/
>> 
>> The provided EarlyLoad test still pass with this approach, and this
>> would avoid loading a few
>> classes and a resource bundle when not installing a security manager
>> (the SecurityManager class is always loaded on bootstrap).
> 
> it turns out this isn't actually an issue: the SecurityManager class is
> loaded very early during bootstrap by the VM, but not initialized
> unless actually created (this can be seen by comparing -Xlog:class+load
> and -Xlog:class+init output).  Thus for the purposes of startup then
> the original patch was OK.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> /Claes
>