-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.7k
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
8344034: Remove security manager dependency in Serialization #22041
8344034: Remove security manager dependency in Serialization #22041
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Sean Mullan <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alan Bateman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Weijun Wang <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Aleksei Efimov <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Brian Burkhalter <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Daniel Fuchs <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harshitha Onkar <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Joe Wang <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jorn Vernee <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Justin Lu <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Kevin Walls <[email protected]>> Co-authored-by: Lance Andersen <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Naoto Sato <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Roger Riggs <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Brent Christian <[email protected]>
…java, not useful without SM
setInitialContextFactoryBuilder and setObjectFactoryBuilder methods in javax.naming.spi.NamingManager.
permission cannot be used anymore to control access.
…sion checks of the Class.getNestHost and getNestMembers methods, which no longer apply.
…ested by other tests
…ava, useless without SM
ModuleDescriptor.location().
…attacker to create new instances
…Class<?> clazz, int which)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should all usages of SecurityManager
be removed from this class?
ObjectInputFilter.setSerialFilter and setSerialFilterFactory, have they been missed? |
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged( | ||
new sun.security.action.GetBooleanAction( | ||
"sun.io.serialization.extendedDebugInfo")).booleanValue(); | ||
private static final boolean extendedDebugInfo = Boolean.getBoolean("sun.io.serialization.extendedDebugInfo"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit: bit of a long line, consider breaking into 2 lines.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good other than 2 small comments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updates look good.
Updates passed CI tier1, tier2, tier3 |
/integrate |
Going to push as commit 9b0ab92.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
@RogerRiggs Pushed as commit 9b0ab92. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
After JDK-8338411, Serialization implementation dependencies on SecurityManager, doPrivildged, and AccessController are removed.
Some refactoring to cleanup the remaining code is expected.
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22041/head:pull/22041
$ git checkout pull/22041
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/22041
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22041/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 22041
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 22041
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22041.diff
Using Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment