Is there a valid case where a security manager is created but not set? --Max
> On Jan 12, 2560 BE, at 7:18 AM, Claes Redestad <claes.redes...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > Hi again, > > On 2017-01-11 15:27, Claes Redestad wrote: >> Hi Adam, >> >> On 01/11/2017 02:34 PM, Adam Petcher wrote: >>> Please review the following bug fix: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~apetcher/8168075/webrev.00/ >>> >>> This fixes a bug in which a permission check would try to load >>> resources while the system class loader is being initialized. >>> Resources cannot be loaded at this time, so this change ensures that >>> the resources are loaded earlier. >>> >> >> couldn't this be done in System.setSecurityManager rather than in a >> static block >> in SecurityManager? >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/scratch/8168075.alt/ >> >> The provided EarlyLoad test still pass with this approach, and this >> would avoid loading a few >> classes and a resource bundle when not installing a security manager >> (the SecurityManager class is always loaded on bootstrap). > > it turns out this isn't actually an issue: the SecurityManager class is > loaded very early during bootstrap by the VM, but not initialized > unless actually created (this can be seen by comparing -Xlog:class+load > and -Xlog:class+init output). Thus for the purposes of startup then > the original patch was OK. > > Thanks! > > /Claes >
