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

Mandy Chung mandy.chung at oracle.com
Mon Jan 30 21:53:11 UTC 2017


> 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
> 



More information about the security-dev mailing list