[libattach] misleading error message when checking gid fails

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Fri Jan 7 11:47:58 UTC 2022

On 07/01/2022 11:33, stuart nelson wrote:
> Hey,
> First, apologies if this should be directed to a different mailing list, I didn't find one that seemed correct in the mailing lists (https://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo).
> I was building up a syscall filters list for a java process for seccomp, when I encountered this error stack trace:
> (elided)
> Caused by: java.io.IOException: well-known file /proc/1974261/root/tmp/.java_pid1974261 is not secure: file's group should be the current group (which is -1) but the group is 1000
>      at jdk.attach/sun.tools.attach.VirtualMachineImpl.checkPermissions(Native Method)
>      at jdk.attach/sun.tools.attach.VirtualMachineImpl.<init>(VirtualMachineImpl.java:112)
>      at jdk.attach/sun.tools.attach.AttachProviderImpl.attachVirtualMachine(AttachProviderImpl.java:58)
>      at jdk.attach/com.sun.tools.attach.VirtualMachine.attach(VirtualMachine.java:207)
>      ... 6 more
> The error originates from this line:
> https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/ee1d592a9f53/src/jdk.attach/linux/native/libattach/VirtualMachineImpl.c#l167
> The value for gid is found on this line:
> https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/ee1d592a9f53/src/jdk.attach/linux/native/libattach/VirtualMachineImpl.c#l150
> The reason getegid() returns -1 is because it wasn't in my allowed syscalls list for seccomp, so EPERM (-1) was returned instead.
> My question is: -1 is an invalid gid. Should this be checked in the code, and a more helpful error message returned? It could definitely save future developers time.
serviceability-dev is the mailing lists for the Attach API. In this 
case, the exception message is clear that the gid is -1 so it should 
help with debugging the issue.


More information about the jdk-dev mailing list