RFR (12): 8191053: Provide a mechanism to make system's security manager immutable

[mandy chung]

On 9/13/18 4:50 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> Looks sensible to me.
>
> On 9/13/18 1:02 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> 2. A new JDK-specific system property to disallow the setting of the 
>> security manager at run-time: jdk.allowSecurityManager
>>
>> If set to false, it allows the run-time to optimize the code and 
>> improve performance when it is known that an application will never 
>> run with a SecurityManager. To support this behavior, the 
>> System.setSecurityManager() API has been updated such that it can 
>> throw an UnsupportedOperationException if it does not allow a 
>> security manager to be set dynamically.
>
> I guess the default value is true?
>
> The behavior makes sense, though the name I think is misleading. It 
> seems not to disallow a security manager, but to disallow the 
> capability to *set* the security manager. Maybe 
> "jdk.allowSetSecurityManager" ?
>

When -Djdk.allowSecurityManager is set at startup, no security manager 
is allowed.  Most cases a security manager is started via 
-Djava.security.manager on the command-line.

This name also prepares for the future to potentially flip the default 
(no security manager by default) and allow a security manager at runtime.

Mandy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/security-dev/attachments/20180913/20e01859/attachment.htm>