Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

JDK24: Permanently Disable the Security Manager #20625

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

theresa-m
Copy link
Contributor

@theresa-m theresa-m commented Nov 18, 2024

  • Throw an error on initialization if java.security.manager attempts to add a security manager
  • configure System.setSecurityManager to always throw an UnsupportedOperationException
  • System.getSecurityManager will always return null since a security manager can't be set
  • Update java.security.* javadocs
  • Exclude unused helper methods in java.security.* including native code
  • Disable functional tests that rely on a security manager

Related: #20563

<disables>
<disable>
<comment>https://github.com/eclipse-openj9/openj9/issues/20563</comment>
<version>24+</version>
Copy link
Contributor Author

@theresa-m theresa-m Nov 18, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@llxia is this the preferred way to disable tests from running in future versions? The security tests should run for JDK 11-23 only. I've mostly seen the block used in temporarily disabled tests so I wanted to check since this would be a permanent change.

Copy link
Contributor

@llxia llxia Nov 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

disable is for temporary excludes. In this case, we should set <version>[11, 23]</version> . Example code: https://github.com/adoptium/TKG/blob/master/examples/jdkVersion/playlist.xml#L39

@theresa-m theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 3 times, most recently from 888855d to 7ab4eda Compare November 19, 2024 16:24
@theresa-m theresa-m marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2024 15:14
@tajila
Copy link
Contributor

tajila commented Nov 20, 2024

@JasonFengJ9 Please review these changes

Copy link
Member

@JasonFengJ9 JasonFengJ9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The natives related to checkPermission() can be ifdef out for JDK24+ such as

Java_java_security_AccessController_getAccSnapshot(JNIEnv* env, jclass jsAccessController, jint startingFrame, jboolean forDoPrivilegedWithCombiner)

@@ -1265,6 +1265,10 @@ static void checkTmpDir() {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 9]*/
static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

initSecurityManager() can be removed at

System.initSecurityManager(applicationClassLoader);

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is still needed since initSecurityManager is used to detect settings of the java.security.manager property.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

initSecurityManager() reads the system property java.security.manager, and sets throwUOEFromSetSM which can be skipped within setSecurityManager().
System.initSecurityManager(applicationClassLoader) seems not needed for JDK24+.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It will still be needed to throw an exception on startup for illegal java.security.manager manager settings triggered by throwErrorOnInit .

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -727,10 +727,15 @@ private boolean debugHelper(Permission perm) {
*
* @param perm java.security.Permission
* the permission to check
/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The API description should be changed for JDK24 such as Throws AccessControlException.

test/functional/testVars.mk Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@pshipton
Copy link
Member

FYI #20655

@theresa-m theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 2 times, most recently from fce9383 to fc9e6eb Compare November 22, 2024 21:28
} else if ("disallow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$
/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11]*/
throwUOEFromSetSM = true;
/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */
/* Do nothing. */
/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */
} else {
/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/
throwErrorOnInit = true;
/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */
/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17]*/
initialErr.println("WARNING: A command line option has enabled the Security Manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$
initialErr.println("WARNING: The Security Manager is deprecated and will be removed in a future release"); //$NON-NLS-1$
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These WARNING messages shouldn't be printed for JDK24+.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

They are excluded already (in the /*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */) block.

/*[MSG "K0637", "A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported."]*/
throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0637")); //$NON-NLS-1$
}
/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think throwErrorOnInit isn't needed, the Error can be moved around Line 1278 whenever java.security.manager is detected.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I liked the variable since the -Djava.security.manager=disallow case should not throw an exception.

@@ -355,6 +355,7 @@ K0633="{0} is not a valid AccessMode."
K0634="{0}.{1}({2}) is static. Expected instance field."
K0635="{0}.{1}({2}) is non-static. Expected static field."
K0636="No such field: {0}.{1}({2})"
K0637="A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported."
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

K0637 has been taken.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for catching this.

Copy link
Member

@JasonFengJ9 JasonFengJ9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In addition, all AccessController.doPrivileged_XXX usages can be removed for JDK24+ such as

static final boolean ENABLED = AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Boolean>() {

Yeah, there are lots of them.

@@ -49,25 +51,25 @@ public final class AccessController {
initializeInternal();
}

private static native void initializeInternal();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This native can be removed for JDK24+, I expect J9JavaVM->doPrivilegedMethodID_XXX are not needed along with

jboolean JNICALL Java_java_security_AccessController_initializeInternal(JNIEnv *env, jclass thisClz)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have excluded these and am running a personal build to see if there are any impacted tests.

@theresa-m theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 2 times, most recently from 725ab4c to 72168cc Compare November 25, 2024 18:22
- Throw an error on initialization if java.security.manager attempts to add a security manager
- configure setSecurityManager to always throw an UnsupportedOperationException
- getSecurityManager will always return null since a security manager can't be set

Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>
@theresa-m
Copy link
Contributor Author

In addition, all AccessController.doPrivileged_XXX usages can be removed for JDK24+ such as

static final boolean ENABLED = AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Boolean>() {

Yeah, there are lots of them.

Do you mind if I do this in a second pull request? This change set is already getting large.

@JasonFengJ9
Copy link
Member

In addition, all AccessController.doPrivileged_XXX usages can be removed for JDK24+
Yeah, there are lots of them.

Do you mind if I do this in a second pull request? This change set is already getting large.

Sounds good.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants