Querstion about ForkJoinPool / SecurityManager interoperability
patrick at reini.net
Fri Dec 14 22:50:29 UTC 2018
In my simplified test, I managed to reproduce the execution in the main
thread, when I did not wait for a start and directly called get()...
as in your test here:
Am 14.12.18 um 16:11 schrieb Martin Buchholz:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:37 AM Patrick Reinhart <patrick at reini.net
> <mailto:patrick at reini.net>> wrote:
> Even if the security manager is enabled before the initialize of the
> ForkJoinPool not all work is delegated to
> instances (sometimes it picks the main thread instead, that has
> not the
> restrictions, what I think should not be the case and is a potential
> security leak too)
> Looking again at testCommonPoolThreadContextClassLoader, we had once
> noticed that a common pool task might escape into a caller thread, but
> as usual, we then forgot about it.
> 97 // Ensure runInCommonPool is truly running in the common
> 98 // by giving this thread no opportunity to "help" on get().
> And this might indeed be a security problem that should be fixed.
More information about the core-libs-dev