On 4/2/19 9:44 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
On Apr 2, 2019, at 9:33 PM, Sean Mullan <sean.mul...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 4/1/19 11:12 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
I can understand the change in Permissions, but is there any difference in
PermissionsHash?
The key and value in the PermissionsHash map is always the same object. This
fix ensures that is respected, otherwise after deserialization you could have a
SocketPermission mapped to a FilePermission, for example. Would it be better if
I added a test for that?
Yes, you are right. I thought the old code can also enforce this relation.
Now for the test, perms.ser is binary and you haven't described how it is
generated.
I just hacked Permissions.writeObject to switch the mappings. That was a
lot easier than trying to write my own serialization code. I will add
some comments in the test explaining how I did that and what is in
perms.ser.
--Sean
Thanks,
Max
--Sean
--Max
On Apr 2, 2019, at 1:10 AM, Sean Mullan <sean.mul...@oracle.com> wrote:
It is currently possible to change the mappings in a serialized
java.security.Permissions object such that they no longer map correctly, and
Permissions.readObject won't detect this.
This change makes sure that for a deserialized Permissions object, the
permissions are mapped correctly to the class that they belong to. It does this
by calling add() again for each permission in the deserialized Permissions
object. The same technique was applied to a serialized PermissionsHash object
which is used to store Permissions that don't implement their own
PermissionCollection.
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8020637
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mullan/webrevs/8020637/webrev.00/
Thanks,
Sean
