Add a check to detect the OpenJCEPlus module #924
Conversation
taoliult
force-pushed
the
OpenJCEPlus-Check
branch
from
2126df6 to
81d196e
Compare
| if (module.isPresent()) { | ||
| isOpenJCEPlusModuleExist = true; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The field should be final and initialized as:
isOpenJCEPlusModuleExist = module.isPresent();| @@ -387,6 +397,11 @@ private static void checkIfKnownProfileSupported() { | |||
| + " on this platform."); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if (profileID.contains("OpenJCEPlus") && !isOpenJCEPlusModuleExist) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The operands of && should be reversed (doing the cheaper test first).
Add a check to detect the OpenJCEPlus module. If the module is missing but the restricted security profile requires it, print an error message and exit. Signed-off-by: Tao Liu <[email protected]>
taoliult
force-pushed
the
OpenJCEPlus-Check
branch
from
15ac91d to
47366a5
Compare
| @@ -387,6 +394,11 @@ private static void checkIfKnownProfileSupported() { | |||
| + " on this platform."); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if (!isOpenJCEPlusModuleExist && profileID.contains("OpenJCEPlus")) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This doesn't seem right. Trying to use a profile called "not-OpenJCEPlus" shouldn't demand the presence of the openjceplus module. Also profiles that don't contain that string might actually depend on the openjceplus module.
I would expect to just get "no such provider" or something similar if I try to use an algorithm that requires a module (perhaps openjceplus, but it could be another module) that isn't present in the runtime in use. What are the current symptoms of that situation? Are they really worth potentially breaking legitimate use-cases?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The initially discussion about this is, we want to remove the OpenJCEPlus profile from the java.security file in the OpenJ9 builds. The OpenJCEPlus profile should only appear in the java.security file for the Semeru and personal builds. To do this, our first proposal was to modify how the java.security file is generated by introducing a new variable during the process. But, you suggested keeping the profile in the file and instead using a general mechanism to handle any broken profiles. So I am thinking about this current solution to detect the OpenJCEPlus module.
But after the team discussions last Friday, we realized that using this detect the OpenJCEPlus module solution won’t work for the OpenJCEPlus on z/OS. Since the OpenJCEPlus doesn’t exist as a Java module on z/OS.
So, we still think the best solution is to remove the OpenJCEPlus profile from the java.security file in the OpenJ9 builds. That said, it needs to add a new variable during the java.security file generation process. Or, do you have any other suggestions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we could conditionally include sections of java.security depending on whether BUILD_OPENJCEPLUS is true or false, but that wouldn't address the problem of a runtime created via jlink that excludes the openjceplus module.
It's not immediately obvious that we have a serious problem that needs to be solved. What are the symptoms if an algorithm is requested that is not present in the runtime?
Add a check to detect the OpenJCEPlus module. If the module is missing but the restricted security profile requires it, print an error message and exit.
Signed-off-by: Tao Liu [email protected]