Handlers can be subclassed. Is it a security concern when
doPrivileged is invoking non-final public/protected methods? For
example,
@Override
public void setOutputStream(OutputStream out) {
LogManager.getLogManager().reset();
}
@Override
public void setLevel(Level l) {
LogManager.getLogManager().reset();
}
Jason
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:14:03 -0800
> From: mandy.ch...@oracle.com
> To: peter.lev...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Theoretical data race on java.util.logging.Handler.sealed
> CC: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
>
> On 12/14/2013 9:38 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Daniel reminded me of a couple of issues the 4th revision of the
patch
> > would have when backporting to 7u. So here's another variant that
> > tries to be more backport-friendly:
> >
> >
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/jul.Handler.sealed/webrev.05/
>
> This looks good in general.
>
> SocketHandler line 200 - it looks to me that this is an existing bug
> that should call setOutputStream within doPrivileged.
>
> I think it'd be simpler if SocketHandler no-arg constructor can first
> get the port and host from the logging properties so that it doesn't
> need to differentiate hostAndPortSet is set and ConfigureAction no-arg
> constructor can be removed.
>
> Daniel/Peter - do we have tests to cover these permission check for
> these handlers?
>
> Mandy
>
> >
> > This variant could be backported by simply replacing a limited
variant
> > of doPrivileged (introduced in JDK 8) with full variant and still
not
> > elevate the privilege of Socket creation in SocketHandler. I also
> > removed the need to subclass various ConfigureAction(s) with
> > annonymous inner subclasses by introducing overloaded
constructors to
> > ConfigureActions(s) that follow the overloaded constructors of
various
> > Handlers.
> >
> > Regards, Peter
> >
> > On 12/14/2013 12:25 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
> >> Hi Mandy,
> >>
> >> On 12/13/2013 12:37 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> >>> Hi Peter,
> >>>
> >>> On 12/8/2013 11:19 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
> >>>> H Mandy,
> >>>>
> >>>> I created an issue for it nevertheless:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029781
> >>>>
> >>>> You're right, doPrivileged() is a more straight-forward approach
> >>>> than 'sealed' variable. Since this might only be considered for
> >>>> inclusion in JDK9 when lambdas are already a tried technology,
how
> >>>> do you feel about using them for platform code like logging?
As far
> >>>> as I know (just checked), lambda meta-factory is not using any
> >>>> j.u.logging, so there is no danger of initialization loops or
similar:
> >>>>
> >>>>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/jul.Handler.sealed/webrev.03/
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the delay to get to this.
> >>
> >> No rush. We have time before JDK9 gets set-up and running...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Alan is right that java.lang.invoke.ProxyClassesDumper does use
> >>> PlatformLogger which will forward calls to j.u.logging if
> >>> -Djava.util.logging.config.file is set or java.util.logging has
been
> >>> initialized (via other j.u.logging call). It means that it may
lead
> >>> to recursive initialization. Also the current PlatformLogger
> >>> implementation formats the message in the same way as j.u.logging
> >>> that may load locale providers and other classes. I am afraid
there
> >>> are issues to tease out and resolve.
> >>
> >> It's unfortunate that a lambda debugging feature prevents us from
> >> using a basic language feature in j.u.logging code. As far as I
know,
> >> java.lang.invoke.ProxyClassesDumper is only used if
> >> 'jdk.internal.lambda.dumpProxyClasses' system property is set to
> >> point to a directory where lambda proxy class files are to be
dumped
> >> as they are generated - a debugging hook therefore. Wouldn't it be
> >> good-enough if error messages about not-being able to set-up/use
the
> >> dump facility were output to System.err directly - not using
> >> PlatformLogger at all?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The overloads the doPrivileged method makes it cumbersome to use
> >>> lambda that causes you to workaround it by adding a new
> >>> PrivilegedVoidAction interface which is clever. So I think it
isn't
> >>> too bad for this patch to use anonymous inner class and have the
> >>> doPrivileged call in the constructor.
> >>
> >> Right. I have prepared a modified webrev which doesn't use lambdas:
> >>
> >>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk8-tl/jul.Handler.sealed/webrev.04/
> >>
> >> In attempt to minimize the boilerplate, I haven't just replaced
> >> lambdas with anonymous inner classes, but rather turned all private
> >> configure() methods into ConfigureAction inner classes. In two
> >> occasions (SocketHandler and StreamHandler), they are extended with
> >> anonymous inner classes to append some actions. In SocketHandler I
> >> kept the mechanics of transporting the checked IOException out of
> >> PrivilegedAction by wrapping it with Unchecked IOException and
later
> >> unwrapping and throwing it, rather than using
> >> PrivilegedExceptionAction which would further complicate exception
> >> handling, since it declares throwing a general j.l.Exception,
but the
> >> SocketHandler constructor only declares throwing IOException...
> >>
> >> I think this could be backported to 7u as-is.
> >>
> >> Regards, Peter
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mandy
> >>
> >
>
