EXPERIMENTAL: Remove SecurityManager #1353
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rPraml
commented
Jul 7, 2023
| @@ -132,7 +101,7 @@ public synchronized void setCachingEnabled(boolean enabled) { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| /** @return a map from classes to associated JavaMembers objects */ | |||
| Map<CacheKey, JavaMembers> getClassCacheMap() { | |||
| Map<Class, JavaMembers> getClassCacheMap() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No security context -> We can revert this change #1019
| @@ -23,8 +23,7 @@ public Class<?> defineClass(String name, byte[] data) { | |||
| // Use our own protection domain for the generated classes. | |||
| // TODO: we might want to use a separate protection domain for classes | |||
| // compiled from scripts, based on where the script was loaded from. | |||
| return super.defineClass( | |||
| name, data, 0, data.length, SecurityUtilities.getProtectionDomain(getClass())); | |||
| return super.defineClass(name, data, 0, data.length, getClass().getProtectionDomain()); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CHECKME: Would we need a protectionDomain at all?
| if (protectionDomain == null) { | ||
| protectionDomain = JavaAdapter.class.getProtectionDomain(); | ||
| } | ||
| ProtectionDomain protectionDomain = JavaAdapter.class.getProtectionDomain(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CHECKME: can this be simplified?
| @@ -319,8 +318,7 @@ private void discoverAccessibleMethods( | |||
| if (isPublic(mods) || isProtected(mods) || includePrivate) { | |||
| MethodSignature sig = new MethodSignature(method); | |||
| if (!map.containsKey(sig)) { | |||
| if (includePrivate && !method.isAccessible()) | |||
| method.setAccessible(true); | |||
| VMBridge.instance.tryToMakeAccessible(method); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CHECKME: Do we need a VMBridge for java 11/17?
|
I think that we should do this after the 1.7.15 release -- at that point I want to reorganize the source files (git seems to be smart enough to make that less of a nightmare), upgrade the build to require Java 11 minimum, and then this can be one of the first things that we address. |
p-bakker
added
the
Java Compatibility
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hello, I want to discuss, if it is already time to remove the dependency to SecurityManager from Rhino.
There was already a discussion, where I was involved: #972
and the last days I found some time to update our fork.
Why should we remove the dependency to securityManager
Why shouldn't we remove it
This PR is radical and removes all code pieces, that relate to SecurityManager.
(Note: I've made an earlier PR, where I moved all stuff to a "SecurityBridge". See: #1068)
Maybe you can provide some feedback, what will be a good way to go here?