On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:56:53 GMT, Daniel Fuchs <dfu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This code change adds an alternative implementation of user-based >> authorization `Subject` APIs that doesn't depend on Security Manager APIs. >> Depending on if the Security Manager is allowed, the methods store the >> current subject differently. See the spec change in the `Subject.java` file >> for details. When the Security Manager APIs are finally removed in a future >> release, this new implementation will be only implementation for these >> methods. >> >> One major change in the new implementation is that `Subject.getSubject` >> always throws an `UnsupportedOperationException` since it has an >> `AccessControlContext` argument but the current subject is no longer >> associated with an `AccessControlContext` object. >> >> Now it's the time to migrate from the `getSubject` and `doAs` methods to >> `current` and `callAs`. If the user application is simply calling >> `getSubject(AccessController.getContext())`, then switching to `current()` >> would work. If the `AccessControlContext` argument is retrieved from an >> earlier `getContext()` call and the associated subject might be different >> from that of the current `AccessControlContext`, then instead of storing the >> previous `AccessControlContext` object and passing it into `getSubject` to >> get the "previous" subject, the application should store the `current()` >> return value directly. > > src/java.management/share/classes/com/sun/jmx/remote/security/MBeanServerFileAccessController.java > line 307: > >> 305: AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<>() { >> 306: public Subject run() { >> 307: return Subject.current(); > > Is the `doPrivileged` still needed here? Is there a chance that > `Subject.current()` will throw a `SecurityException`, or return a different > result if a security manager is present and `doPrivileged` is not used? When a security manager is set, `current()` still calls `getSubject()` and it needs a permission unless it's called inside `doPrivileged`. But, see the comment above. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17472#discussion_r1471585097