Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.

8279007: jstatd fails to start because SecurityManager is disabled #53

Closed

Conversation

kevinjwalls
Copy link

@kevinjwalls kevinjwalls commented Dec 21, 2021

jstatd now in jdk18 fails to start unless we specifically allow or set a SecurityManager.
This update to the launcher makefile adds JAVA_ARGS to permit a SecurityManager.


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

  • JDK-8279007: jstatd fails to start because SecurityManager is disabled

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk18 pull/53/head:pull/53
$ git checkout pull/53

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/53
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk18 pull/53/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 53

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 53

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk18/pull/53.diff

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 21, 2021

👋 Welcome back kevinw! 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.

@kevinjwalls
Copy link
Author

@kevinjwalls kevinjwalls commented Dec 21, 2021

/label serviceability

@openjdk openjdk bot added rfr serviceability labels Dec 21, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 21, 2021

@kevinjwalls
The serviceability label was successfully added.

@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Dec 21, 2021

Webrevs

Copy link

@AlanBateman AlanBateman left a comment

This looks okay in that it is now worked exactly as it did in JDK 17.

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 21, 2021

@kevinjwalls 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:

8279007: jstatd fails to start because SecurityManager is disabled

Reviewed-by: alanb, sspitsyn, mullan

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 6 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 84d3333: 8279081: ProblemList jdk/jfr/event/oldobject/TestLargeRootSet.java on 2 platforms
  • 1128674: 8278627: Shenandoah: TestHeapDump test failed
  • 54517fa: 8279074: ProblemList compiler/codecache/jmx/PoolsIndependenceTest.java on macosx-aarch64
  • ac7430c: 8278044: ObjectInputStream methods invoking the OIF.CFG.getSerialFilterFactory() silent about error cases.
  • db3d6d7: 8278087: Deserialization filter and filter factory property error reporting under specified
  • 467f654: 8279011: JFR: JfrChunkWriter incorrectly handles int64_t chunk size as size_t

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
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 openjdk bot added the ready label Dec 21, 2021
@seanjmullan
Copy link
Member

@seanjmullan seanjmullan commented Dec 21, 2021

You should also remove -Djava.security.manager=allow from the jstatd test (test/jdk/sun/tools/jstatd/JstatdTest.java) as it is not needed now.

@kevinjwalls
Copy link
Author

@kevinjwalls kevinjwalls commented Dec 21, 2021

You should also remove -Djava.security.manager=allow from the jstatd test (test/jdk/sun/tools/jstatd/JstatdTest.java) as it is not needed now.

Yes of course! Thanks.

Copy link

@sspitsyn sspitsyn left a comment

Looks good to me.
Thanks,
Serguei

@kevinjwalls
Copy link
Author

@kevinjwalls kevinjwalls commented Dec 22, 2021

Regarding the link to #45
I went with "allow" here as it is jstatd's intention to set an RMISecurityManager, not a SecurityManager. We know that is not really different, but this is a late jdk18 change and changing the classes that we load looks like more change than needed here at least.

Planning to follow up with a change for jstatd to stop being dependent on the security manager, so warnings are temporary.

@kevinjwalls
Copy link
Author

@kevinjwalls kevinjwalls commented Dec 22, 2021

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 22, 2021

Going to push as commit 7341439.
Since your change was applied there have been 8 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 97c5cd7: 8278508: Enable X86 maskAll instruction pattern for 32 bit JVM.
  • 9ee3ccf: 8279045: Intrinsics missing vzeroupper instruction
  • 84d3333: 8279081: ProblemList jdk/jfr/event/oldobject/TestLargeRootSet.java on 2 platforms
  • 1128674: 8278627: Shenandoah: TestHeapDump test failed
  • 54517fa: 8279074: ProblemList compiler/codecache/jmx/PoolsIndependenceTest.java on macosx-aarch64
  • ac7430c: 8278044: ObjectInputStream methods invoking the OIF.CFG.getSerialFilterFactory() silent about error cases.
  • db3d6d7: 8278087: Deserialization filter and filter factory property error reporting under specified
  • 467f654: 8279011: JFR: JfrChunkWriter incorrectly handles int64_t chunk size as size_t

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated label Dec 22, 2021
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Dec 22, 2021
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready rfr labels Dec 22, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 22, 2021

@kevinjwalls Pushed as commit 7341439.

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

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
integrated serviceability
4 participants