Review request: 8040059 Change default policy for extensions to no permission

Sean Mullan sean.mullan at
Thu Apr 24 18:32:58 UTC 2014

On 04/23/2014 05:29 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> On 4/23/2014 1:10 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Just a few comments:
>> 1. When you write a test that uses the jtreg /policy option, the
>> policy file overrides the system policy file. If the test depends on a
>> standard extension, then you may get SecurityExceptions unless
>> additional perms are granted. Thus, there are quite a few tests that
>> define their own policy files and duplicate the grant statement for
>> extensions from the system policy:
>>     grant codeBase "file:${{java.ext.dirs}}/*" {
>>         permission;
>>     }
>> These tests should be modified to only grant the necessary
>> permissions. However, ideally I think that a better solution would be
>> to add a jtreg /policy option that doesn't override the system policy
>> file, but rather appends to it, for example, using "==" :
> I suspect most of the tests only want to grant the permissions for the
> test itself rather than overriding the system policy file. Having a new
> jtreg/policy option not to override the system policy file may be a
> better solution.    This would avoid updating the test's policy file
> every time the system's policy is modified.   On the other hand, I think
> the test policy may not need to grant permissions to the extensions
> directory if it doesn't use the classes in extensions.  It's a good
> opportunity to clean that up. This will require some closer look at the
> tests.
> If you are okay, I'd like to separate the test's custom policy update as
> a follow-on work.

That's fine with me.

>> @run main/othervm/policy==test.policy
>> (this is the reverse behavior of the system
>> property, so it might be a little confusing, so maybe it is better to
>> add a new option)
> "==" is a confusing syntax.
> overrides the system policy file ("=" prefix) whereas jtreg uses the
> reverse syntax? I think it would be better to make jtreg/policy
> consistent with (i.e. default is to extend the
> system

Would be nice, but not sure if we can change it at this point. Anyway, 
one of us should file a jtreg RFE.

>> 3. jdk/nio/zipfs/
>> If I understand the changes, the previous code would throw
>> SecurityExceptions when run under a SecurityManager? It's not
>> specifically related to this bug, is it?
> It's a bug in the zipfs provider and I can file a new JBS issue for the
> zipfs change.  I prefer to push them in the same changeset that reduces
> zipfs's privileges and added tests to run with security manager.

Sure, it is fine with me to include them with this. I just wanted to 
make sure I understood the changes.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list