8344149: Remove usage of Security Manager from java.rmi #22129

stuart-marks · 2024-11-15T01:12:34Z

First cut at removal of Security Manager stuff from RMI.

This covers just about every SM-related case in RMI, except for a bit of package checking in MarshalInputStream. This will be handled separately. It's covered by JDK-8344329.

Further simplifications could be done in RuntimeUtil and NewThreadAction. However, those changes started to become somewhat more intrusive than I'd like for this PR, which is focused on removing security-related stuff. EDIT: I've filed JDK-8344461 to cover this additional cleanup work.

Progress

Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

JDK-8344149: Remove usage of Security Manager from java.rmi (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

Kevin Walls (@kevinjwalls - Reviewer) Review applies to 1e7e88a7
Aleksei Efimov (@AlekseiEfimov - Reviewer) Review applies to 1e7e88a7
Roger Riggs (@RogerRiggs - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22129/head:pull/22129
$ git checkout pull/22129

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/22129
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/22129/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 22129

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 22129

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22129.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

bridgekeeper · 2024-11-15T01:13:05Z

👋 Welcome back smarks! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2024-11-15T01:13:36Z

@stuart-marks This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8344149: Remove usage of Security Manager from java.rmi

Reviewed-by: rriggs, kevinw, aefimov

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 107 new commits pushed to the master branch:

5cb0d43: 8293040: Argfile documentation for java launcher tool is confusing regarding usage of wildcards
8d43e0d: 8344331: SM cleanup in java.scripting
f636674: 8344247: Move objectWaiter field to VirtualThread instance
de6e013: 8344310: Remove Security Manager dependencies from javax.crypto and com.sun.crypto packages
92271af: 8344058: Remove doPrivileged calls from macos platform sources in the java.desktop module
70eb95f: 8344187: Remove SecurityManager and related calls from java.instrument
922b12f: 8344078: Remove security manager dependency in java.nio
2649406: 8344352: 32-bit builds crash after JDK-8305895
e9e4200: 8343125: Correct the documentation for TreeMap's getFloorEntry and getCeilingEntry
c59adf6: 8344330: Remove AccessController.doPrivileged() from jdk.charsets module
... and 97 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/168b18ec68dd5488704cf76895d2449cd86428a6...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

openjdk · 2024-11-15T01:14:06Z

@stuart-marks The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

core-libs

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

mlbridge · 2024-11-18T17:05:40Z

Webrevs

01: Full - Incremental (f8e63868)
00: Full (1e7e88a7)

kevinjwalls

Looks good to me. 8-)

AlekseiEfimov

The changes look good to me, with two suggestions below.

AlekseiEfimov · 2024-11-18T17:39:44Z

src/java.rmi/share/classes/sun/rmi/runtime/NewThreadAction.java


    /**
     * special child of the system thread group for running tasks that
     * may execute user code, so that the security policy for threads in


Do we still want to mention security policy here?

Yeah, I should probably edit that. I don't want to change the thread group behavior, so the justification for the thread group might mention the (historical) effect on security policy.

AlekseiEfimov · 2024-11-18T17:55:31Z

src/java.rmi/share/classes/sun/rmi/server/MarshalInputStream.java

+                .equalsIgnoreCase("false");

    /** table to hold sun classes to which access is explicitly permitted */
    protected static Map<String, Class<?>> permittedSunClasses


It looks like permittedSunClasses map can be removed alongside to checkSunClass(String, AccessControlException) method, since it is only called on line 198:

} catch (@SuppressWarnings("removal") AccessControlException e) { return checkSunClass(className, e);

Sorry, missed your comment in a PR description - ignore the comment above

Right, this will be covered by JDK-8344329.

RogerRiggs

Looks ok, but some additional cleanup is recommended.

RogerRiggs · 2024-11-18T18:49:57Z

src/java.rmi/share/classes/sun/rmi/runtime/NewThreadAction.java

 * @author      Peter Jones
 **/
-public final class NewThreadAction implements PrivilegedAction<Thread> {
+public final class NewThreadAction {


Suggest inlining the methods and getting rid of the class, moving non-trivial methods to an existing Util class.
Or at least renaming it to to drop the "Action" that is indicative of doPrivileged.

Yes, further cleanup should be done here. I had started on it but I backed away since it felt like a distraction from the initial pass of removing direct SecurityManager and AccessController calls. I've filed JDK-8344461 to cover the followup work.

RogerRiggs · 2024-11-18T18:55:14Z

src/java.rmi/share/classes/sun/rmi/transport/tcp/TCPChannel.java

    public void startNewAcceptor() {
-        @SuppressWarnings("removal")
-        Thread t = AccessController.doPrivileged(
+        Thread t =


Fold to previous line.

RogerRiggs

looks fine.

stuart-marks · 2024-11-19T18:57:12Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2024-11-19T18:58:24Z

Going to push as commit 6a5256e.
Since your change was applied there have been 138 commits pushed to the master branch:

0b1f571: 8253440: serviceability/sa/TestJhsdbJstackLineNumbers.java failed with "Didn't find enough line numbers"
93e889b: 8342449: reimplement: JDK-8327114 Attach in Linux may have wrong behavior when pid == ns_pid
bb7a840: 8342541: Exclude List/KeyEventsTest/KeyEventsTest.java from running on macOS
087a07b: 8343479: Remove unnecessary @SuppressWarnings annotations (hotspot)
02ec8ca: 8342508: Use latch in BasicMenuUI/bug4983388.java instead of delay
47ebf8d: 8342098: Write a test to compare the images
78602be: 8344024: Unnecessary Hashtable usage in RSAPSSSignature.DIGEST_LENGTHS
7f672eb: 8344550: Compilation error of jpackage test JPackageStringBundle.java source
48223f7: 8344143: Test jdk/java/lang/Thread/virtual/stress/GetStackTraceALotWhenPinned.java timed out on macosx-x64
d4cd27e: 8344445: MethodCounters don't need a vptr
... and 128 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/168b18ec68dd5488704cf76895d2449cd86428a6...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2024-11-19T18:58:31Z

@stuart-marks Pushed as commit 6a5256e.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

AlanBateman · 2024-11-22T07:06:06Z

src/java.rmi/share/classes/sun/rmi/runtime/NewThreadAction.java


-import java.security.AccessController;
-import java.security.PrivilegedAction;
-import sun.security.util.SecurityConstants;


Are there any remaining uses of sun.security.util.* in java.rmi? I suspect this is the last one, in which case you can update java.base's module-info to not export this package to java.rmi.

I will check if it is the last one as part of JDK-8344299.

Roger has filed JDK-8344867 to cover cleanup of the unneeded qualified export.

First cut at removal of Security Manager stuff from RMI.

1e7e88a

openjdk bot added the core-libs core-libs-dev@openjdk.org label Nov 15, 2024

stuart-marks changed the title ~~First cut at removal of Security Manager stuff from RMI.~~ 8344149: Remove usage of Security Manager from java.rmi Nov 15, 2024

stuart-marks marked this pull request as ready for review November 18, 2024 17:00

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Nov 18, 2024

kevinjwalls approved these changes Nov 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 18, 2024

AlekseiEfimov reviewed Nov 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

AlekseiEfimov approved these changes Nov 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

RogerRiggs reviewed Nov 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

Update with changes from code review.

f8e6386

openjdk bot removed the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 18, 2024

RogerRiggs approved these changes Nov 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Nov 18, 2024

openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Nov 19, 2024

openjdk bot closed this Nov 19, 2024

openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Nov 19, 2024

AlanBateman reviewed Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

8344149: Remove usage of Security Manager from java.rmi #22129

8344149: Remove usage of Security Manager from java.rmi #22129

Uh oh!

Conversation

stuart-marks commented Nov 15, 2024 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Nov 15, 2024

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 15, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 15, 2024

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Nov 18, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

kevinjwalls left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlekseiEfimov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

RogerRiggs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

RogerRiggs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

stuart-marks commented Nov 19, 2024

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 19, 2024

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 19, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

stuart-marks commented Nov 15, 2024 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Nov 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading