CRIU: Backport CRIUSupport to JDK8

[tajila]

List of PRs that need to be ported to other JDK versions:

• Add CRIU security provider ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#510
• CRIU support: add checkpoint/restore environment variables ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#486
• CRIU JPP for unix/classes/java/lang/ProcessEnvironment.java ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#498
• Use the OpenSSL PKCS12 method for PBE and simplify NativeCrypto property checking ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#585

[JasonFengJ9]

A few more PRs from JDK11 extension repo to be ported to JDK8:

• Add IncludeIfUnsure for $(SUPPORT_OUTPUTDIR)/overlay ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#511
• Adopt configuration GENERIC to generate DDR_VM sources ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#512
• Refactor the CRIU security provider to openj9.internal.criu ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#521
• Remove CRIUConfigurator from java.security ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#523
• Remove IBM semeru reference from CRIUSEC ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#524
• Buffer CRIU RNG ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#529
• CRIU update TimerTask.nextExecutionTime with checkpointRestoreTimeDelta ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#531
• Change CRIU RNG to be non-blocking, mixing in SHA1PRNG data ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#535
• Move ClassSpecializer.java & add NotCheckpointSafe ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#556
• Add NULL check for CRIU field retrieval ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk11#561

FYI @tajila

[singh264]

@tajila @JasonFengJ9 I would like to contribute to addressing this issue.

[tajila]

Currently, this is not part of the plan in the short or medium term. There is a significant amout of security work required to support JDK8 which is not captured in this issue.

[singh264]

It seems like this issue is very low priority currently, however I would like to know the feasibility of making an initial contribution by backporting a minimal set of changes to enable basic criu functionality in jdk8. Could this be a worthwhile starting point for addressing the issue at this time?

[singh264]

Could this be a worthwhile starting point for addressing the issue at this time?

It seems like due to significant amount of security work required to support JDK8 which is not captured in this issue, this is not a worthwhile starting point for addressing the issue at this time.

[singh264]

How can I know an approximate date for work as this is not a worthwhile starting point for addressing the issue at this time?

[tajila]

There are no plans for this work at this time.