Disallowing the dynamic loading of agents by default
mark.reinhold at oracle.com
mark.reinhold at oracle.com
Tue Apr 4 22:49:29 UTC 2017
2017/4/4 6:02:28 -0700, alasdair.nottingham at gmail.com:
>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 6:59 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>> 2017/4/3 10:52:02 -0700, alasdair.nottingham at gmail.com:
>>> ... However there is one case
>>> where we do a dynamic attach of this agent. There is an industry trend
>>> towards running the application server as an uber-jar using java -jar
>>> <jar.name>. To support this in Liberty (in common with other
>>> application servers) our main method extracts the app server to disk
>>> at startup before bootstrapping the server from extracted jar
>>> files. One of the jar files extracted in this way is our Java agent,
>>> so we use the attach API to attach it so we get monitoring and debug
>>> logging. I had been thinking of expanding this to use the attach api
>>> in preference to -javaagent because that gets rid of this spurious
>>> error message from the mac JVM:
>>> objc: Class JavaLaunchHelper is implemented in both
>>> (0x10f4464c0) and
>>> (0x110dbb4e0). One of the two will be used. Which one is undefined.
>> Is getting rid of this spurious message (which, as Alan observed, has
>> been removed) your only motivation to load the agent dynamically?
> No, as I described the motivation for our first use of attach to add a Java agent was to
> address our uber-jar deployment. I wanted to use a single JVM, but I wanted the Java
> agent to be in the uber-jar and I did not want to have to require the end user to specify
> -javaagent as well as -jar. The user experience I wanted to enable was java -jar uber.jar,
> but still have the agent. While I was making this change I noticed that when I dynamically
> attached the agent I didn’t get the error message I included. As I didn’t know that the JDK
> bug had been finally fixed I was thinking of doing a dynamic attach simply to remove the
> error message. I’m assuming that if I thought this way it is likely someone else did also.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. It wasn't obvious (to me, at least)
from your first message. I think there may be an easy way to support
this idiom; let me give it a bit more thought.
>>> Mark did ask for alternative proposals, so other than the defer to a
>>> future release option, what about allowing a developer to put
>>> something in the manifest.mf to enable dynamic attachment from the
>>> same JVM? If there is a concern over all or nothing being too broad
>>> the manifest entry could list a hash of the agent jar so the developer
>>> has to know about the agent a-priori.
>> I don't see how this would address the scenario of a dynamically-loaded
>> agent (for, say, performance monitoring) that's unknown to the original
>> library or application developer. This seems to be an important use
> It doesn’t, and I didn’t intend to suggest it would. Essentially I was assuming that
> a remote attach and enable of a Java Agent would work, thus allowing performance
> monitoring to work, but it would close the aperture for a self-attach, that is agents
> that a developer has specifically blessed at the point the jar was built. This would
> ensure that if an app developer used a library that did something nefarious with an agent
> that the agent wouldn’t work without an app developer specifically acknowledging it.
Okay, got it.
> One of the problems Java has today is that it is very easy to end up depending on internals
> because the JVM has no modularity. It is one thing to end up using a Java API that is
> visible, but not intended to be used by an application, and another to explicitly break
> the modularity constraints in order to call API’s that are not intended to be accessible. If
> someone does write an agent, to break out of the modularity constraints, I do not think anyone
> can validly complain if a change breaks what they are doing. The creation of the agent is
> essentially an acceptance they have done something that could be broken at any time.
> Essentially I’m leaning back on I don’t think this is a likely vector for someone attempting
> to subvert the modularity system for the long term. Perhaps I’m just being too optimistic, but
> in my work on non-modular app servers, and modular app servers it is clear that if you put in
> place protection designed to stop accidental use (but not determined malicious use), then it
> causes people to think twice about breaking out of the constraints.
As I wrote in my reply to Andrew, my own experience makes me less
optimistic than either of you two seem to be.
Either way, the performance work that we'd like to pursue in the long
term needs more than optimism and honorable behavior -- it needs hard
and fast guarantees.
More information about the jigsaw-dev