On Wed, 19 May 2021 06:20:59 GMT, Erik Gahlin wrote:
> This looks useful, but I am worried about the performance impact:
>
> * The added allocation for every object that is finalized.
> * The event being enabled in the default configuration.
>
> The default configuration must be safe to use eve
On Tue, 18 May 2021 22:41:06 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Please review this enhancement to add a new JFR event, generated whenever a
>> finalizer is run.
>> (The makeup is similar to the Deserialization event,
>> [JDK-8261160](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261160).)
>>
>> The ev
> Please review this enhancement to add a new JFR event, generated whenever a
> finalizer is run.
> (The makeup is similar to the Deserialization event,
> [JDK-8261160](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261160).)
>
> The event's only datum (beyond those common to all jfr events) is the c
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:32:35 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find in this PR a proposal to fix JDK-8265462 [1].
>
> With this fix, OpenJDK will only use the known slot IDs for the NSS Internal
> Module. If the NSS Internal Module has more slots (for example, as a result
> of an init
On Tue, 18 May 2021 21:40:57 GMT, Istvan Neuwirth
wrote:
>> Please review this enhancement to add a new JFR event, generated whenever a
>> finalizer is run.
>> (The makeup is similar to the Deserialization event,
>> [JDK-8261160](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261160).)
>>
>> The e
On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 22:24, Ron Pressler wrote:
>
>
> > On 18 May 2021, at 07:10, David Black wrote:
> >
> >
> > I hope you aren't being rude on purpose by continuing to 1) top post
> > and 2) not ignore various parts of my emails.
> >
>
> This isn’t a debate forum. We’re trying to collect info
> Please review the test changes for [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> With JEP 411 and the default value of `-Djava.security.manager` becoming
> `disallow`, tests calling `System.setSecurityManager()` need
> `-Djava.security.manager=allow` when launched. This PR covers such
On Tue, 18 May 2021 20:55:10 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
> Please review this enhancement to add a new JFR event, generated whenever a
> finalizer is run.
> (The makeup is similar to the Deserialization event,
> [JDK-8261160](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261160).)
>
> The event's
Please review this enhancement to add a new JFR event, generated whenever a
finalizer is run.
(The makeup is similar to the Deserialization event,
[JDK-8261160](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261160).)
The event's only datum (beyond those common to all jfr events) is the class of
the
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28c9f9be7941a1
> The essential change for this JEP, incl
On Tue, 18 May 2021 18:38:52 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java line 877:
>>
>>> 875: @CallerSensitive
>>> 876: public static T doPrivileged(PrivilegedExceptionAction
>>> action,
>>> 877: @Supp
On Tue, 18 May 2021 17:36:55 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Please review this implementation of [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>>
>> 1.
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e3
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Mon, 17 May 2021 17:51:36 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review the test changes for [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> With JEP 411 and the default value of `-Djava.security.manager` becoming
> `disallow`, tests calling `System.setSecurityManager()` need
> `-Djava.secu
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Tue, 18 May 2021 04:03:16 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please find in this PR a proposal to fix JDK-8265462 [1].
>>
>> With this fix, OpenJDK will only use the known slot IDs for the NSS Internal
>> Module. If the NSS Internal Module has more slots (for example, as a result
>> of
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:37:21 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util`
> package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable?
>
> Kind regards,
> Patrick
Classes in the i18n area look good.
-
Marked
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Tue, 18 May 2021 15:19:21 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> It includes both:
>> 
>
> Thanks for checking, I assumed that was the case so wondering if it
On Tue, 18 May 2021 12:42:08 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/SecurityManager.java line 315:
>>
>>> 313: *
>>> 314: * @since 1.0
>>> 315: * @deprecated The Security Manager is deprecated and subject to
>>> removal in a
>>
>> Javadoc will prefix, in bold, "D
Hi,
JDK-8266293 is backported to 11.0.12-oracle. The included test shows that the
fix is required in 11u.
Bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8266293
Original change:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/04f71126479f9c39aa71e8aebe7196d72fc16796
It applies almost cleanly. Only the
On Tue, 18 May 2021 05:48:56 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> The changes look okay but a bit inconsistent on where -Djava...=allow is
> inserted for tests that already set other system properties or other
> parameters. Not a correctness issue, just looks odd in several places, e.g.
>
> test/jdk/jav
On Tue, 18 May 2021 11:12:00 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Please review the test changes for [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> With JEP 411 and the default value of `-Djava.security.manager` becoming
>> `disallow`, tests calling `System.setSecurityManager()` need
>> `-Dja
Refactor the following shell tests to Java:
- security/pkcs11/KeyStore/Basic.sh
- security/pkcs11/KeyStore/ClientAuth.sh
- security/pkcs11/KeyStore/SecretKeysBasic.sh
- security/pkcs11/Provider/ConfigQuotedString.sh
- security/pkcs11/Provider/Login.sh
- security/pkcs11/Config/ReadConfInUTF16Env.sh
On Tue, 18 May 2021 06:31:06 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Please review this implementation of [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>>
>> 1.
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e3
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:37:21 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util`
> package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable?
>
> Kind regards,
> Patrick
Because we still make jdk11-compatible test-release java.u
> On 18 May 2021, at 07:10, David Black wrote:
>
>
> I hope you aren't being rude on purpose by continuing to 1) top post
> and 2) not ignore various parts of my emails.
>
This isn’t a debate forum. We’re trying to collect information, not
to convince every last person. I respond to what I t
> On 18 May 2021, at 12:27, Peter Firmstone wrote:
>
>
> However I disagree that the Principle of least privilege is wrong headed, I
> think you've been discussing sandbox concepts with the experts and they're
> going to tell you that's a bad idea. But the two aren't the same, one is
> acc
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:37:21 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util`
> package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable?
>
> Kind regards,
> Patrick
You may need to coordinate with @DougLea on the changes to
On Mon, 17 May 2021 17:51:36 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review the test changes for [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> With JEP 411 and the default value of `-Djava.security.manager` becoming
> `disallow`, tests calling `System.setSecurityManager()` need
> `-Djava.secu
On 18/05/2021 8:49 pm, Ron Pressler wrote:
On 18 May 2021, at 03:39, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Is it also possible to consider directing file access and network access
through single points of access? This will simplify the process so we don't
need to scour the entire codebase for usages.
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:37:21 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util`
> package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable?
>
> Kind regards,
> Patrick
Changes look good.
-
Marked as reviewed by l
> On 18 May 2021, at 03:39, Peter Firmstone wrote:
>
>
> Is it also possible to consider directing file access and network access
> through single points of access? This will simplify the process so we don't
> need to scour the entire codebase for usages.
>
Of all your suggestions, I thi
Hi,
Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util`
package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable?
Kind regards,
Patrick
-
Commit messages:
- 8267110: Update java.util to use instanceof pattern variable
Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net
> This PR contains the API and implementation changes for JEP-412 [1]. A more
> detailed description of such changes, to avoid repetitions during the review
> process, is included as a separate comment.
>
> [1] - https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/412
Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request
Because people have been treating it like a sandbox.
Since it will take a number of years, can we at least consider my
proposal and give it a try? It may reduce the burden in the interim.
So this step deprecates it for removal, can we create a JEP for
replacing the SecurityManager with Acces
On 18/05/2021 08:36, Peter Firmstone wrote:
:
It's a perception issue, I understand, but we can fix that far less
painfully.
With respect, I don't see a viable route here. SM/AccessController and
most of that security architecture has been an albatross around our
necks for years. This JE
On 18/05/2021 4:10 pm, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 18/05/2021 03:39, Peter Firmstone wrote:
:
Yes, I realize that, it is my understanding that because this is a
security concern, it is not something the community is allowed to
provide support for at OpenJDK, hence my suggestion to Alan, to make
41 matches
Mail list logo
