RFR : JDK-8044122 MBean access to the PID

[mandy chung]

The permission check should be done separately, if needed. Otherwise, 
the frames in the stack when this method is called must have the 
security permission granted.

Mandy

On 10/23/17 1:00 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When running this privileged it means one can bypass the permission by 
> using the MBean, is that intentional? (Besides it is already available 
> as the JMVID)
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
> -- 
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* serviceability-dev 
> <serviceability-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> on behalf of mandy chung 
> <mandy.chung at oracle.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 20, 2017 4:42:00 PM
> *To:* Ujwal Vangapally; Roger Riggs
> *Cc:* serviceability-dev
> *Subject:* Re: RFR : JDK-8044122 MBean access to the PID
> Process::pid may throw SecurityException.  You have to wrap the call
> with doPrivileged.   Process::pid can throw UOE on platform that doesn't
> support this operation.  RuntimeMXBean::getPid should specify when the
> platform does not support this operation.
>
> ProcessIdTest - can you also check if getName contains the pid matching
> the value of getPid()?
>
> Mandy
>
> On 10/20/17 2:07 AM, Ujwal Vangapally wrote:
> > kindly see the new webrev incorporating review comments.
> >
> > webrev:
> > 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~uvangapally/webrev/2017/8044122/webrev.01/ 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Euvangapally/webrev/2017/8044122/webrev.01/>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ujwal.
> >
> >
> > On 10/11/2017 3:50 PM, Ujwal Vangapally wrote:
> >> Thanks for the review and suggestions Mandy, Roger.
> >>
> >> kindly see my comments inline.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/10/2017 11:25 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> >>> Hi Ujwal,
> >>>
> >>> In the implementation RuntimeMXBean.java: 72: Include a message
> >>> "getProcessId" in the throw new Unsupported...
> >>> In the text and @return change "PID" to "process ID" as Alan 
> suggested.
> >>> 66: the @implSpec should be on its own line so the text starts on a
> >>> new line to make the source more readable.
> >>>
> >>> Adding a test for getProcessId() should fit into one of the existing
> >>> tests that spawns and then checks
> >>> the attributes of a vm.  Perhaps MXBeanInteropTest1.java
> >> I will make changes as suggested.
> >>>
> >>> Roger
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/10/2017 1:20 PM, mandy chung wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/10/17 4:47 AM, Ujwal Vangapally wrote:
> >>>>> Kindly review the changes made.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044122
> >>>>>
> >>>>> webrev :
> >>>>> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~uvangapally/webrev/2017/8044122/webrev.00/ 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Euvangapally/webrev/2017/8044122/webrev.00/> 
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> RuntimeMXBean.java
> >>>>    @since is missing
> >>>>
> >> I will add it.
> >>>>    Process::pid is long rather than int. The javadoc for this
> >>>> method should be consistent with Process::pid, as Alan points out.
> >> will do it.
> >>>>
> >>>> VMManagementImpl.java
> >>>>     I think getProcessId should probably be replaced to implement
> >>>> with ProcessHandle.current().pid();
> >>>>
> >> you mean it would be better to use ProcessHandle.current().pid(); in
> >> RuntimeImpl.java instead of jvm.getVmPid();
> >>
> >> kindly clarify.
> >>>> Please include an unit test for it.
> >>>>
> >> will it be sufficient to add it to existing test 
> MXBeanInteropTest1.java
> >>
> >>              System.out.println("getName\t\t"
> >>                      + runtime.getName());
> >> +            System.out.println("getPid\t\t"
> >> +                    + runtime.getPid());
> >>              System.out.println("getSpecName\t\t"
> >>                      + runtime.getSpecName());
> >>
> >>>> Mandy
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ujwal
> >
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20171024/8a0e18f6/attachment.html>