[14] RFR(M) 8185139: [Graal] Tests which set too restrictive security manager fail with Graal

Mandy Chung mandy.chung at oracle.com
Fri Jun 21 01:02:59 UTC 2019

On 6/20/19 1:40 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
> Sorry, I'm just catching up and looking at this now.
> The one thing I don't like about these tests that use their own Policy 
> implementation is that the permissions that are granted inside the 
> test are granted to all code, and not just the test, which may lead to 
> cases where permissions that should be granted to JDK modules in 
> default.policy may be missed.

When the test wants a fine-control on turning on security manager
programmatically and test various security permission combinations,
I prefer to use a custom Policy implementation.

Otherwise, I have to maintain multiple different test.policy files to
test different permission combination which will be prone to editing

I think we should provide a test library to help building a custom Policy
implementation that can take the default policy, preferrably the policy
for the resolved modules such that the test can focus its logic of
security configuration and does not need to code with the system
modules in mind.

That's what I started with ModulePolicy and could potentially build up
test library for configuring security permissions programmatically.


> In tests that use policy files, we should grant permissions to only 
> the test, for example:
>   grant codebase "file:${test.classes}/.../-" {
>     permission ...;
>   };
> However, in looking through our policy files, there are many that are 
> not doing that. Something to fix, so I'll file a bug.
> This could also be fixed in these tests by inspecting the CodeSource 
> of the ProtectionDomain. Or better yet, they should just use the jtreg 
> java.security.policy option and a policy file and avoid the need to 
> create a Policy implementation.
> Thanks,
> Sean
> On 6/20/19 11:04 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> The Policy API does not assume the presence of the default policy for
>> the runtime to use.
>> jdk.internal.vm.compiler already uses doPrivileged.   The module ends up
>> with no permission as the test policy does not consult the default 
>> policy.
>> Mandy
>> On 6/20/19 6:32 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> If this were java.base, we would use doPrivilege to ignore the 
>>> policy and place specific limits.
>>> Encumbering the default policy with conditions needed by a trusted 
>>> subsystem seems
>>> like distributing what should be a local implementation issue.
>>> $.02, Roger
>>> On 6/20/19 2:23 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>>> Hi Vladimir,
>>>> Indeed these are test issues that the tests will need to grant 
>>>> permissions
>>>> to jdk.internal.vm.compiler as the default policy grants.
>>>> Thanks for going extra miles to fix the tests.
>>>> My suggestion may be a bit general.  What I intend to say the custom
>>>> security policy should extend the default policy unless it 
>>>> intentionally
>>>> excludes configuring permissions for specific modules.  I review the
>>>> the patch but the test doesn't clearly tell what the test intends to
>>>> do w.r.t. security configuration.
>>>> We should avoid inadvertently granting permissions that the test 
>>>> expects
>>>> to disallow.  A better solution is to limit granting permissions 
>>>> just for
>>>> `jdk.internal.vm.compiler` module rather than all.
>>>> Attached is ModulePolicy class that allows you to get the Policy for
>>>> a specific module. It can be put in the test library that these tests
>>>> can use them.
>>>> So the test can call ModulePolicy.get("jdk.internal.vm.compiler") and
>>>> implies method will call the returned ModulePolicy if present.
>>>> test/lib/jdk/test/lib/security is one existing testlibrary for 
>>>> security
>>>> related stuff.  You can consider putting ModulePolicy.java there.
>>>> This is one idea.
>>>> Mandy
>>>> On 6/19/19 6:03 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/8185139/webrev.00/
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8185139
>>>>> For Graal to work we have to give Graal module all permissions 
>>>>> which is specified in default policy [1].
>>>>> Unfortunately this cause problem for Graal running tests which 
>>>>> overwrite default policy.
>>>>> I discussed this with Mandy and she suggested that such tests 
>>>>> should also check default policy. I implemented her suggestion. 
>>>>> Note, this is not only Graal problem. There were already similar 
>>>>> fixes before [2].
>>>>> I also updated Graal's problem list. Several tests were left on 
>>>>> problem list (with different bug id) because they would not run 
>>>>> with Java Graal (for example, they use --limit-modules flag which 
>>>>> prevents loading Graal module). We will enable such tests again 
>>>>> when libgraal is supported.
>>>>> I ran testing which execute these tests with Graal. It shows only 
>>>>> known problems which are not related to these changes.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>> [1] 
>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/49ed5e31fe1e/src/java.base/share/lib/security/default.policy#l156 
>>>>> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189291

More information about the security-dev mailing list