JDK24: Permanently Disable the Security Manager #20625

theresa-m · 2024-11-18T21:40:35Z

Throw an error on initialization if java.security.manager attempts to add a security manager
configure System.setSecurityManager to always throw an UnsupportedOperationException
System.getSecurityManager will always return null since a security manager can't be set
Update java.security.* javadocs
Exclude unused helper methods in java.security.* including native code
Exclude unused helper methods and natives in java.lang.Class
Disable functional tests that rely on a security manager

Related: #20563

theresa-m · 2024-11-18T21:46:53Z

test/functional/cmdLineTests/J9security/playlist.xml

+		<disables>
+			<disable>
+				<comment>https://github.com/eclipse-openj9/openj9/issues/20563</comment>
+				<version>24+</version>


@llxia is this the preferred way to disable tests from running in future versions? The security tests should run for JDK 11-23 only. I've mostly seen the block used in temporarily disabled tests so I wanted to check since this would be a permanent change.

disable is for temporary excludes. In this case, we should set <version>[11, 23]</version> . Example code: https://github.com/adoptium/TKG/blob/master/examples/jdkVersion/playlist.xml#L39

tajila · 2024-11-20T15:30:28Z

@JasonFengJ9 Please review these changes

JasonFengJ9

The natives related to checkPermission() can be ifdef out for JDK24+ such as

openj9/runtime/jcl/common/java_lang_Class.cpp

Line 1406 in 48709bf

    
           Java_java_security_AccessController_getAccSnapshot(JNIEnv* env, jclass jsAccessController, jint startingFrame, jboolean forDoPrivilegedWithCombiner)

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-20T19:21:58Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

@@ -1265,6 +1265,10 @@ static void checkTmpDir() {

 /*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 9]*/
 static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {


initSecurityManager() can be removed at

openj9/jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ClassLoader.java

Line 297 in 48709bf

System.initSecurityManager(applicationClassLoader);

This is still needed since initSecurityManager is used to detect settings of the java.security.manager property.

initSecurityManager() reads the system property java.security.manager, and sets throwUOEFromSetSM which can be skipped within setSecurityManager().
System.initSecurityManager(applicationClassLoader) seems not needed for JDK24+.

It will still be needed to throw an exception on startup for illegal java.security.manager manager settings triggered by throwErrorOnInit .

Suggested change

static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {

static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {

String javaSecurityManager = internalGetProperties().getProperty("java.security.manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$

if (null == javaSecurityManager) {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18]*/

throwUOEFromSetSM = true;

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */

/* Do nothing. */

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */

} else if ("disallow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11]*/

throwUOEFromSetSM = true;

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */

/* Do nothing. */

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */

} else {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/

/*[MSG "K0B04", "A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported."]*/

throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0B04")); //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */

if ("allow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

/* Do nothing. */

} else {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17]*/

initialErr.println("WARNING: A command line option has enabled the Security Manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$

initialErr.println("WARNING: The Security Manager is deprecated and will be removed in a future release"); //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17 */

if (javaSecurityManager.isEmpty() || "default".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

setSecurityManager(new SecurityManager());

} else {

try {

Constructor<?> constructor = Class.forName(javaSecurityManager, true, applicationClassLoader).getConstructor();

constructor.setAccessible(true);

setSecurityManager((SecurityManager)constructor.newInstance());

} catch (Throwable e) {

/*[MSG "K0631", "JVM can't set custom SecurityManager due to {0}"]*/

throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0631", e.toString()), e); //$NON-NLS-1$

}

}

}

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */

}

}

Can you clarify the benefits of this approach over the existing change?

For readability, the proposed change has 4 pairs of /*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/ and an unnecessary local variable throwErrorOnInit.

I think what we have is correct. This could be refactored to eliminate that local variable, but I think that should be done separately (if at all), and I can see ways forward that are even better.

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessControlContext.java

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java

test/functional/testVars.mk

.../functional/cmdLineTests/shareClassTests/DataHelperTests/DataHelperTests_SecurityManager.xml

test/functional/cmdLineTests/shareClassTests/DataHelperTests/playlist.xml

test/functional/Java8andUp/src/org/openj9/test/attachAPI/TestAttachAPI.java

pshipton · 2024-11-20T20:40:37Z

FYI #20655

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/com/ibm/oti/util/ExternalMessages-MasterIndex.properties

JasonFengJ9

In addition, all AccessController.doPrivileged_XXX usages can be removed for JDK24+ such as

openj9/jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Reference.java

Line 70 in 3da9d2f

    
           static final boolean ENABLED = AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Boolean>() {

Yeah, there are lots of them.

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-24T23:46:18Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java

@@ -49,25 +51,25 @@ public final class AccessController {
 		initializeInternal();
 	}

+	private static native void initializeInternal();


This native can be removed for JDK24+, I expect J9JavaVM->doPrivilegedMethodID_XXX are not needed along with

openj9/runtime/jcl/common/acccont.c

Line 28 in 3da9d2f

jboolean JNICALL Java_java_security_AccessController_initializeInternal(JNIEnv *env, jclass thisClz)

I have excluded these and am running a personal build to see if there are any impacted tests.

I have excluded and opened an issue for the one failure I found #20702.

theresa-m · 2024-11-25T18:28:57Z

In addition, all AccessController.doPrivileged_XXX usages can be removed for JDK24+ such as

openj9/jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Reference.java

Line 70 in 3da9d2f

static final boolean ENABLED = AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Boolean>() {

Yeah, there are lots of them.

Do you mind if I do this in a second pull request? This change set is already getting large.

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-25T18:51:55Z

In addition, all AccessController.doPrivileged_XXX usages can be removed for JDK24+
Yeah, there are lots of them.

Do you mind if I do this in a second pull request? This change set is already getting large.

Sounds good.

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-28T20:32:30Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

@@ -1265,6 +1265,10 @@ static void checkTmpDir() {

 /*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 9]*/
 static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {


Suggested change

static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {

static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {

String javaSecurityManager = internalGetProperties().getProperty("java.security.manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$

if (null == javaSecurityManager) {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18]*/

throwUOEFromSetSM = true;

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */

/* Do nothing. */

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */

} else if ("disallow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11]*/

throwUOEFromSetSM = true;

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */

/* Do nothing. */

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */

} else {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/

/*[MSG "K0B04", "A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported."]*/

throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0B04")); //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */

if ("allow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

/* Do nothing. */

} else {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17]*/

initialErr.println("WARNING: A command line option has enabled the Security Manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$

initialErr.println("WARNING: The Security Manager is deprecated and will be removed in a future release"); //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17 */

if (javaSecurityManager.isEmpty() || "default".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

setSecurityManager(new SecurityManager());

} else {

try {

Constructor<?> constructor = Class.forName(javaSecurityManager, true, applicationClassLoader).getConstructor();

constructor.setAccessible(true);

setSecurityManager((SecurityManager)constructor.newInstance());

} catch (Throwable e) {

/*[MSG "K0631", "JVM can't set custom SecurityManager due to {0}"]*/

throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0631", e.toString()), e); //$NON-NLS-1$

}

}

}

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */

}

}

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-28T20:46:37Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java

@@ -637,6 +651,7 @@ private static int getNewAuthorizedState(AccessControlContext acc, ProtectionDom
 	}
 	return newAuthorizedState;
 }
+/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION < 24 */


This can be moved to L722 to include toArrayOfProtectionDomains().

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-28T20:48:09Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java

 	checkPermsNPE(perms);
+/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION < 24 */


keepalive() can be removed for JDK24+.

runtime/jcl/common/acccont.c

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-28T20:52:59Z

runtime/jcl/common/java_lang_Class.cpp

@@ -55,10 +55,12 @@ typedef enum {
 #define 	STACK_WALK_STATE_LIMITED_DOPRIVILEGED		(void *)2
 #define 	STACK_WALK_STATE_FULL_DOPRIVILEGED		(void *)3

+#if JAVA_SPEC_VERSION < 24


ObjsArraySizeNindex, STACK_WALK_STATE_LIMITED_DOPRIVILEGED and STACK_WALK_STATE_FULL_DOPRIVILEGED can be removed for JDK24+.

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java

runtime/jcl/common/acccont.c

runtime/jcl/common/java_lang_Class.cpp

.../functional/cmdLineTests/shareClassTests/DataHelperTests/DataHelperTests_SecurityManager.xml

test/functional/testVars.mk

Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

to a different job and exclude from 24+. Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

- Throw an error on initialization if java.security.manager attempts to add a security manager - configure setSecurityManager to always throw an UnsupportedOperationException - getSecurityManager will always return null since a security manager can't be set Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

... for further investigation. Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

Exclude helper methods related to removing the security manager including: - AccessController.initializeInternal native in acccont.c - native helper methods in java_lang_class - doPriviled*id fields from J9JavaVM struct - unused helper methods in java.security.AccessController - unused helper methods in java.security.AccessControlContext - unused helper methods in java.lang.Class java.security comment update and exclude helper methods Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

keithc-ca · 2024-12-06T15:54:26Z

Jenkins test sanity amac jdk21,jdknext

keithc-ca · 2024-12-06T17:35:39Z

This test is failing for the head stream:

        FAILED: test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String
        java.lang.AssertionError: java.lang.System.security shoud NOT be accessible via reflection
        	at org.testng.Assert.fail(Assert.java:96) from jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders$AppClassLoader@9f588eca(file:/Users/jenkins/testDependency/lib/testng.jar)
        	at org.openj9.test.java.lang.Test_Class.test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String(Test_Class.java:724) from jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders$AppClassLoader@9f588eca(file:/Users/jenkins/workspace/Test_openjdknext_j9_sanity.functional_aarch64_mac_Personal_testList_0/jvmtest/functional/Java8andUp/GeneralTest.jar)
        	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DirectMethodHandleAccessor.invoke(DirectMethodHandleAccessor.java:104) from jrt:/java.base
        	at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:571) from jrt:/java.base

keithc-ca · 2024-12-06T18:00:25Z

The sanity.openjdk failure needs to be addressed:

[2024-12-06T16:25:17.208Z] java.lang.RuntimeException: 'at java.lang.System.initPhase3' missing from stdout/stderr

Either OpenJ9 needs to change so the error is thrown from System.initPhase3(), or that condition of the test needs to be removed.

keithc-ca · 2024-12-06T18:09:54Z

Perhaps it's better to update initSecurityManager() so it ends something like this:

	/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/
	initPhase3(throwErrorOnInit);
	/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */
}

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/
private static void initPhase3(boolean throwError) {
	if (throwError) {
		/*[MSG "K0B04", "A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported."]*/
		throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0B04")); //$NON-NLS-1$
	}
}
/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */

@pshipton Do you have an opinion?

keithc-ca · 2024-12-06T18:11:23Z

Or the method System.initSecurityManager() could be renamed initPhase3().

theresa-m · 2024-12-06T18:27:31Z

This test is failing for the head stream:

        FAILED: test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String
        java.lang.AssertionError: java.lang.System.security shoud NOT be accessible via reflection
        	at org.testng.Assert.fail(Assert.java:96) from jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders$AppClassLoader@9f588eca(file:/Users/jenkins/testDependency/lib/testng.jar)
        	at org.openj9.test.java.lang.Test_Class.test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String(Test_Class.java:724) from jdk.internal.loader.ClassLoaders$AppClassLoader@9f588eca(file:/Users/jenkins/workspace/Test_openjdknext_j9_sanity.functional_aarch64_mac_Personal_testList_0/jvmtest/functional/Java8andUp/GeneralTest.jar)
        	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DirectMethodHandleAccessor.invoke(DirectMethodHandleAccessor.java:104) from jrt:/java.base
        	at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:571) from jrt:/java.base

For this one the System.security field has been fully removed in OpenJDK's implementation so it has been removed from Reflection.fieldFilterMap. Should I also try to remove the field entirely or update fieldFilterMap to disallow accessing the field?

keithc-ca · 2024-12-06T18:30:22Z

the System.security field has been fully removed

No, otherwise getDeclaredField("security") would have thrown NoSuchFieldException. I suggest test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String() should be updated to return after the first sub-test:

	if (VersionCheck.major() >= 24) {
		// The remaining tests don't apply to Java 24+.
		return;
	}

theresa-m · 2024-12-06T18:56:21Z

No, otherwise getDeclaredField("security") would have thrown NoSuchFieldException.

It does throw NoSuchFieldException in the ri. Shouldn't j9 match that behavior?

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-12-06T19:05:22Z

No, otherwise getDeclaredField("security") would have thrown NoSuchFieldException.

It does throw NoSuchFieldException in the ri. Shouldn't j9 match that behavior?

I think OpenJ9 System.security should be removed for JDK24+ which also matches RI anyway.

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-12-06T19:09:41Z

[2024-12-06T16:25:17.208Z] java.lang.RuntimeException: 'at java.lang.System.initPhase3' missing from stdout/stderr
Either OpenJ9 needs to change so the error is thrown from System.initPhase3(), or that condition of the test needs to be removed.
Perhaps it's better to update initSecurityManager() so it ends something like this:
/[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]/
private static void initPhase3(boolean throwError) {

Agreed.

keithc-ca · 2024-12-06T19:23:45Z

No, otherwise getDeclaredField("security") would have thrown NoSuchFieldException.

It does throw NoSuchFieldException in the ri. Shouldn't j9 match that behavior?

If that were true, it wouldn't execute the next line:

		Assert.fail("java.lang.System.security shoud NOT be accessible via reflection");

but we do see that failure message in the log.

theresa-m · 2024-12-06T19:59:58Z

No, otherwise getDeclaredField("security") would have thrown NoSuchFieldException.

It does throw NoSuchFieldException in the ri. Shouldn't j9 match that behavior?

I think OpenJ9 System.security should be removed for JDK24+ which also matches RI anyway.

I just chatted with Keith and we were in agreement on this approach. For now I will disable the test and do this another time since it will add quite a bit to this pull request. I've started a list of follow up changes #20563 (comment)

... from Java8andUp test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

pshipton · 2024-12-06T20:25:34Z

Re #20625 (comment)

Do you have an opinion?

The suggestion is fine with me. We could also modify the test to look for System.initSecurityManager. I'd lean towards modifying the test, but don't have a strong opinion.

Or the method System.initSecurityManager() could be renamed initPhase3()

It makes the code more cryptic, although a comment would help with that.

theresa-m · 2024-12-06T20:27:03Z

I excluded the failing test in test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String.

java/lang/System/SecurityManagerWarnings.java.SecurityManagerWarnings still needs to be resolved.

... of openjdk java/lang/System/SecurityManagerWarnings.java.SecurityManagerWarnings Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

keithc-ca · 2024-12-06T21:39:21Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

+/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/
+private static void initPhase3(boolean throwError) {
+	if (throwError) {
+		/*[MSG "K0B04", "A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported."]*/
+		throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0B04")); //$NON-NLS-1$
+	}
+}
+/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */


Would it cause any problems to simply rename initSecurityManager to initPhase3?

theresa-m added comp:vm comp:test jdk24 labels Nov 18, 2024

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch from 2b81790 to 409e084 Compare November 18, 2024 21:44

theresa-m commented Nov 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 3 times, most recently from 888855d to 7ab4eda Compare November 19, 2024 16:24

theresa-m marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2024 15:14

theresa-m requested a review from tajila November 20, 2024 15:14

JasonFengJ9 reviewed Nov 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 2 times, most recently from fce9383 to fc9e6eb Compare November 22, 2024 21:28

JasonFengJ9 reviewed Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java Show resolved Hide resolved

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/com/ibm/oti/util/ExternalMessages-MasterIndex.properties Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JasonFengJ9 reviewed Nov 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 3 times, most recently from 72168cc to c9cabc6 Compare November 25, 2024 18:25

theresa-m mentioned this pull request Nov 28, 2024

URLClassLoaderTests NonExistJarTests.CheckForError1 fails from SecurityManager removal #20702

Open

theresa-m requested a review from JasonFengJ9 November 28, 2024 19:48

JasonFengJ9 reviewed Nov 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 2 times, most recently from ac1f215 to 4f82040 Compare December 2, 2024 18:01

keithc-ca requested changes Dec 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 2 times, most recently from 25b945a to f876cb1 Compare December 4, 2024 19:46

theresa-m added 9 commits December 6, 2024 10:24

Set security manager only for JDK 18-23

e54eb6e

Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

Disable cmdLineTester_J9securityTests for 24+

df22624

Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

Disable cmdLineTester_ProxyFieldAccess for 24+

ef69cd5

Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

Split DataHelperTests reliant on the security manager

143dd3f

to a different job and exclude from 24+. Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

Update criu_nonPortable SecurityManager error for 24+

22dddaa

Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

Don't fail on TestAttachAPI SecurityException for 24

b63281e

Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

Exclude URLClassLoaderTests NonExistJarTests.CheckForError1

e6eb7a3

... for further investigation. Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch from 0947ec9 to ff753fe Compare December 6, 2024 15:29

JasonFengJ9 approved these changes Dec 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

Disable System.security reflection test

b798307

... from Java8andUp test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch from 0ba0e18 to b798307 Compare December 6, 2024 20:24

Add initPhase3 method to match Error stack trace

8cf6cb0

... of openjdk java/lang/System/SecurityManagerWarnings.java.SecurityManagerWarnings Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

theresa-m requested a review from keithc-ca December 6, 2024 21:04

keithc-ca reviewed Dec 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

		@@ -1265,6 +1265,10 @@ static void checkTmpDir() {

		/[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 9]/
		static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {

-static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {
+static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {
+	String javaSecurityManager = internalGetProperties().getProperty("java.security.manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$
+	if (null == javaSecurityManager) {
+		/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18]*/
+		throwUOEFromSetSM = true;
+		/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */
+		/* Do nothing. */
+		/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */
+	} else if ("disallow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$
+		/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11]*/
+		throwUOEFromSetSM = true;
+		/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */
+		/* Do nothing. */
+		/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */
+	} else {
+/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/
+		/*[MSG "K0B04", "A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported."]*/
+		throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0B04")); //$NON-NLS-1$
+/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */
+		if ("allow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$
+			/* Do nothing. */
+		} else {
+/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17]*/
+			initialErr.println("WARNING: A command line option has enabled the Security Manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$
+			initialErr.println("WARNING: The Security Manager is deprecated and will be removed in a future release"); //$NON-NLS-1$
+/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17 */
+			if (javaSecurityManager.isEmpty() || "default".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$
+				setSecurityManager(new SecurityManager());
+			} else {
+				try {
+					Constructor<?> constructor = Class.forName(javaSecurityManager, true, applicationClassLoader).getConstructor();
+					constructor.setAccessible(true);
+					setSecurityManager((SecurityManager)constructor.newInstance());
+				} catch (Throwable e) {
+					/*[MSG "K0631", "JVM can't set custom SecurityManager due to {0}"]*/
+					throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0631", e.toString()), e); //$NON-NLS-1$
+				}
+			}
+		}
+/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */
+	}
+}

JDK24: Permanently Disable the Security Manager #20625

Are you sure you want to change the base?

JDK24: Permanently Disable the Security Manager #20625

Conversation

theresa-m commented Nov 18, 2024 • edited Loading

theresa-m Nov 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

llxia Nov 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tajila commented Nov 20, 2024

JasonFengJ9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pshipton commented Nov 20, 2024

JasonFengJ9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

theresa-m commented Nov 25, 2024

JasonFengJ9 commented Nov 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

keithc-ca commented Dec 6, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 6, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 6, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 6, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 6, 2024

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 6, 2024

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024 • edited Loading

JasonFengJ9 commented Dec 6, 2024

JasonFengJ9 commented Dec 6, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 6, 2024

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024 • edited Loading

pshipton commented Dec 6, 2024

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

theresa-m commented Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

theresa-m Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

llxia Nov 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading