On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:21:15 GMT, Sean Mullan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't want to support a whole java.security file replacement. That is too > fragile as any property you miss can end up having no value as the default. Makes sense. > I am not sure what you mean by your second sentence, what is a pass-through > option? An option that puts `conf/security/java.security` into the custom run-time created with `jlink` (even if the file was modified). The first names that come to mind are `--keep-security-properties-changes`, `--use-runtime-security-properties`, or `--security-properties runtime-conf`, probably not the best ones. For a jmod JDK, the option would mean using `conf/security/java.security` instead of the pristine copy from `jmods/java.base.jmod`. For a jmod-less JDK (which already uses `conf/security/java.security`), the option would mean skipping the integrity check. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30635#discussion_r3075511412
