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

Extend RestrictedSecurity constraints #872

Merged

Conversation

KostasTsiounis
Copy link
Contributor

The functionality of the provider constraints in RestrictedSecurity profiles is extended. Instead of allowing them to be universally used, one can optionally indicate the specific module and/or class from where a particular cryptographic algorithm can be called.

Tests are, also, added to test the new functionality offered through RestrictedSecurity profiles.

Back-ported from: ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk#935

Signed-off-by: Kostas Tsiounis [email protected]

@KostasTsiounis
Copy link
Contributor Author

FYI @keithc-ca

@keithc-ca keithc-ca self-requested a review February 26, 2025 18:51
@keithc-ca
Copy link
Member

Please squash.

@KostasTsiounis KostasTsiounis force-pushed the constraints_stack_strict branch from 72c6ad1 to 4259db1 Compare February 27, 2025 16:05
@keithc-ca
Copy link
Member

Jenkins test sanity plinux jdk11

@keithc-ca
Copy link
Member

sanity.openjdk testing all passed before numerous termination requests from Sanitize-Nodes_alinux jobs.

The functionality of the provider constraints in
RestrictedSecurity profiles is extended. Instead of
allowing them to be universally used, one can optionally
indicate the specific module and/or class from where
a particular cryptographic algorithm can be called.

Tests are, also, added to test the new functionality
offered through RestrictedSecurity profiles.

Signed-off-by: Kostas Tsiounis <[email protected]>
@KostasTsiounis KostasTsiounis force-pushed the constraints_stack_strict branch from 4259db1 to 0b16b53 Compare February 27, 2025 21:35
@keithc-ca keithc-ca merged commit 769a876 into ibmruntimes:openj9 Feb 27, 2025
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants