JDK24: Permanently Disable the Security Manager #20625

theresa-m · 2024-11-18T21:40:35Z

Throw an error on initialization if java.security.manager attempts to add a security manager
configure System.setSecurityManager to always throw an UnsupportedOperationException
System.getSecurityManager will always return null since a security manager can't be set
Update java.security.* javadocs
Exclude unused helper methods in java.security.* including native code
Exclude unused helper methods and natives in java.lang.Class
Disable functional tests that rely on a security manager

Related: #20563

theresa-m · 2024-11-18T21:46:53Z

test/functional/cmdLineTests/J9security/playlist.xml

+		<disables>
+			<disable>
+				<comment>https://github.com/eclipse-openj9/openj9/issues/20563</comment>
+				<version>24+</version>


@llxia is this the preferred way to disable tests from running in future versions? The security tests should run for JDK 11-23 only. I've mostly seen the block used in temporarily disabled tests so I wanted to check since this would be a permanent change.

disable is for temporary excludes. In this case, we should set <version>[11, 23]</version> . Example code: https://github.com/adoptium/TKG/blob/master/examples/jdkVersion/playlist.xml#L39

tajila · 2024-11-20T15:30:28Z

@JasonFengJ9 Please review these changes

JasonFengJ9

The natives related to checkPermission() can be ifdef out for JDK24+ such as

openj9/runtime/jcl/common/java_lang_Class.cpp

Line 1406 in 48709bf

    
           Java_java_security_AccessController_getAccSnapshot(JNIEnv* env, jclass jsAccessController, jint startingFrame, jboolean forDoPrivilegedWithCombiner)

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-20T19:21:58Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

@@ -1265,6 +1265,10 @@ static void checkTmpDir() {

 /*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 9]*/
 static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {


initSecurityManager() can be removed at

openj9/jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ClassLoader.java

Line 297 in 48709bf

System.initSecurityManager(applicationClassLoader);

This is still needed since initSecurityManager is used to detect settings of the java.security.manager property.

initSecurityManager() reads the system property java.security.manager, and sets throwUOEFromSetSM which can be skipped within setSecurityManager().
System.initSecurityManager(applicationClassLoader) seems not needed for JDK24+.

It will still be needed to throw an exception on startup for illegal java.security.manager manager settings triggered by throwErrorOnInit .

Suggested change

static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {

static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {

String javaSecurityManager = internalGetProperties().getProperty("java.security.manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$

if (null == javaSecurityManager) {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18]*/

throwUOEFromSetSM = true;

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */

/* Do nothing. */

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */

} else if ("disallow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11]*/

throwUOEFromSetSM = true;

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */

/* Do nothing. */

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */

} else {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/

/*[MSG "K0B04", "A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported."]*/

throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0B04")); //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */

if ("allow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

/* Do nothing. */

} else {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17]*/

initialErr.println("WARNING: A command line option has enabled the Security Manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$

initialErr.println("WARNING: The Security Manager is deprecated and will be removed in a future release"); //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17 */

if (javaSecurityManager.isEmpty() || "default".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

setSecurityManager(new SecurityManager());

} else {

try {

Constructor<?> constructor = Class.forName(javaSecurityManager, true, applicationClassLoader).getConstructor();

constructor.setAccessible(true);

setSecurityManager((SecurityManager)constructor.newInstance());

} catch (Throwable e) {

/*[MSG "K0631", "JVM can't set custom SecurityManager due to {0}"]*/

throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0631", e.toString()), e); //$NON-NLS-1$

}

}

}

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */

}

}

Can you clarify the benefits of this approach over the existing change?

For readability, the proposed change has 4 pairs of /*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/ and an unnecessary local variable throwErrorOnInit.

I think what we have is correct. This could be refactored to eliminate that local variable, but I think that should be done separately (if at all), and I can see ways forward that are even better.

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessControlContext.java

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java

test/functional/testVars.mk

.../functional/cmdLineTests/shareClassTests/DataHelperTests/DataHelperTests_SecurityManager.xml

test/functional/cmdLineTests/shareClassTests/DataHelperTests/playlist.xml

test/functional/Java8andUp/src/org/openj9/test/attachAPI/TestAttachAPI.java

pshipton · 2024-11-20T20:40:37Z

FYI #20655

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/com/ibm/oti/util/ExternalMessages-MasterIndex.properties

JasonFengJ9

In addition, all AccessController.doPrivileged_XXX usages can be removed for JDK24+ such as

openj9/jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Reference.java

Line 70 in 3da9d2f

    
           static final boolean ENABLED = AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Boolean>() {

Yeah, there are lots of them.

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-24T23:46:18Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java

@@ -49,25 +51,25 @@ public final class AccessController {
 		initializeInternal();
 	}

+	private static native void initializeInternal();


This native can be removed for JDK24+, I expect J9JavaVM->doPrivilegedMethodID_XXX are not needed along with

openj9/runtime/jcl/common/acccont.c

Line 28 in 3da9d2f

jboolean JNICALL Java_java_security_AccessController_initializeInternal(JNIEnv *env, jclass thisClz)

I have excluded these and am running a personal build to see if there are any impacted tests.

I have excluded and opened an issue for the one failure I found #20702.

theresa-m · 2024-11-25T18:28:57Z

In addition, all AccessController.doPrivileged_XXX usages can be removed for JDK24+ such as

openj9/jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Reference.java

Line 70 in 3da9d2f

static final boolean ENABLED = AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Boolean>() {

Yeah, there are lots of them.

Do you mind if I do this in a second pull request? This change set is already getting large.

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-25T18:51:55Z

In addition, all AccessController.doPrivileged_XXX usages can be removed for JDK24+
Yeah, there are lots of them.

Do you mind if I do this in a second pull request? This change set is already getting large.

Sounds good.

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-28T20:32:30Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

@@ -1265,6 +1265,10 @@ static void checkTmpDir() {

 /*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 9]*/
 static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {


Suggested change

static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {

static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {

String javaSecurityManager = internalGetProperties().getProperty("java.security.manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$

if (null == javaSecurityManager) {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18]*/

throwUOEFromSetSM = true;

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */

/* Do nothing. */

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */

} else if ("disallow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11]*/

throwUOEFromSetSM = true;

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */

/* Do nothing. */

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */

} else {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/

/*[MSG "K0B04", "A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported."]*/

throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0B04")); //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */

if ("allow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

/* Do nothing. */

} else {

/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17]*/

initialErr.println("WARNING: A command line option has enabled the Security Manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$

initialErr.println("WARNING: The Security Manager is deprecated and will be removed in a future release"); //$NON-NLS-1$

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17 */

if (javaSecurityManager.isEmpty() || "default".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$

setSecurityManager(new SecurityManager());

} else {

try {

Constructor<?> constructor = Class.forName(javaSecurityManager, true, applicationClassLoader).getConstructor();

constructor.setAccessible(true);

setSecurityManager((SecurityManager)constructor.newInstance());

} catch (Throwable e) {

/*[MSG "K0631", "JVM can't set custom SecurityManager due to {0}"]*/

throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0631", e.toString()), e); //$NON-NLS-1$

}

}

}

/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */

}

}

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-28T20:46:37Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java

@@ -637,6 +651,7 @@ private static int getNewAuthorizedState(AccessControlContext acc, ProtectionDom
 	}
 	return newAuthorizedState;
 }
+/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION < 24 */


This can be moved to L722 to include toArrayOfProtectionDomains().

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-28T20:48:09Z

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java

 	checkPermsNPE(perms);
+/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION < 24 */


keepalive() can be removed for JDK24+.

runtime/jcl/common/acccont.c

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-11-28T20:52:59Z

runtime/jcl/common/java_lang_Class.cpp

@@ -55,10 +55,12 @@ typedef enum {
 #define 	STACK_WALK_STATE_LIMITED_DOPRIVILEGED		(void *)2
 #define 	STACK_WALK_STATE_FULL_DOPRIVILEGED		(void *)3

+#if JAVA_SPEC_VERSION < 24


ObjsArraySizeNindex, STACK_WALK_STATE_LIMITED_DOPRIVILEGED and STACK_WALK_STATE_FULL_DOPRIVILEGED can be removed for JDK24+.

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java

runtime/jcl/common/acccont.c

runtime/jcl/common/java_lang_Class.cpp

.../functional/cmdLineTests/shareClassTests/DataHelperTests/DataHelperTests_SecurityManager.xml

test/functional/testVars.mk

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-12-06T19:05:22Z

No, otherwise getDeclaredField("security") would have thrown NoSuchFieldException.

It does throw NoSuchFieldException in the ri. Shouldn't j9 match that behavior?

I think OpenJ9 System.security should be removed for JDK24+ which also matches RI anyway.

JasonFengJ9 · 2024-12-06T19:09:41Z

[2024-12-06T16:25:17.208Z] java.lang.RuntimeException: 'at java.lang.System.initPhase3' missing from stdout/stderr
Either OpenJ9 needs to change so the error is thrown from System.initPhase3(), or that condition of the test needs to be removed.
Perhaps it's better to update initSecurityManager() so it ends something like this:
/[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]/
private static void initPhase3(boolean throwError) {

Agreed.

keithc-ca · 2024-12-06T19:23:45Z

No, otherwise getDeclaredField("security") would have thrown NoSuchFieldException.

It does throw NoSuchFieldException in the ri. Shouldn't j9 match that behavior?

If that were true, it wouldn't execute the next line:

		Assert.fail("java.lang.System.security shoud NOT be accessible via reflection");

but we do see that failure message in the log.

theresa-m · 2024-12-06T19:59:58Z

No, otherwise getDeclaredField("security") would have thrown NoSuchFieldException.

It does throw NoSuchFieldException in the ri. Shouldn't j9 match that behavior?

I think OpenJ9 System.security should be removed for JDK24+ which also matches RI anyway.

I just chatted with Keith and we were in agreement on this approach. For now I will disable the test and do this another time since it will add quite a bit to this pull request. I've started a list of follow up changes #20563 (comment)

... from Java8andUp test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

pshipton · 2024-12-06T20:25:34Z

Re #20625 (comment)

Do you have an opinion?

The suggestion is fine with me. We could also modify the test to look for System.initSecurityManager. I'd lean towards modifying the test, but don't have a strong opinion.

Or the method System.initSecurityManager() could be renamed initPhase3()

It makes the code more cryptic, although a comment would help with that.

theresa-m · 2024-12-06T20:27:03Z

I excluded the failing test in test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String.

java/lang/System/SecurityManagerWarnings.java.SecurityManagerWarnings still needs to be resolved.

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

keithc-ca · 2024-12-09T20:35:33Z

Jenkins test sanity amac jdk21,jdknext

theresa-m · 2024-12-10T02:18:02Z

java/lang/System/SecurityManagerWarnings.java is still failing. I don't think the other failures are related.

The test is looking for "at java.lang.System.initPhase3" and j9 prints "at java/lang/System.initPhase3":
https://github.com/ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk24/blob/master/test/jdk/java/lang/System/SecurityManagerWarnings.java#L90

java -Djava.security.manager=allow
Exception in thread "(unnamed thread)" java/lang/Error: A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported.
	at java/lang/System.initPhase3 (java.base@24-internal/System.java:904)
	at java/lang/ClassLoader.initializeClassLoaders (java.base@24-internal/ClassLoader.java:225)
	at java/lang/Thread.initialize (java.base@24-internal/Thread.java:2722)
	at java/lang/Thread.<init> (java.base@24-internal/Thread.java:2773)

I will update the test to fix this, and while I'm at it I think we should keep the initSecurityManager name instead of initPhase3 since its more descriptive and the purpose of that change was to fix this test.

theresa-m · 2024-12-10T02:26:45Z

The failing job links before my latest push are:
https://openj9-jenkins.osuosl.org/job/Test_openjdknext_j9_sanity.functional_aarch64_mac_Personal/47/
https://openj9-jenkins.osuosl.org/job/Test_openjdknext_j9_sanity.openjdk_aarch64_mac_Personal/16/

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java

Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

keithc-ca · 2024-12-10T16:11:47Z

Jenkins test sanity amac jdknext

keithc-ca

I don't think the test failure is related to this change.

theresa-m added comp:vm comp:test jdk24 labels Nov 18, 2024

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch from 2b81790 to 409e084 Compare November 18, 2024 21:44

theresa-m commented Nov 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 3 times, most recently from 888855d to 7ab4eda Compare November 19, 2024 16:24

theresa-m marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2024 15:14

theresa-m requested a review from tajila November 20, 2024 15:14

JasonFengJ9 reviewed Nov 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 2 times, most recently from fce9383 to fc9e6eb Compare November 22, 2024 21:28

JasonFengJ9 reviewed Nov 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java Show resolved Hide resolved

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java Show resolved Hide resolved

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/com/ibm/oti/util/ExternalMessages-MasterIndex.properties Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JasonFengJ9 reviewed Nov 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 3 times, most recently from 72168cc to c9cabc6 Compare November 25, 2024 18:25

theresa-m mentioned this pull request Nov 28, 2024

URLClassLoaderTests NonExistJarTests.CheckForError1 fails from SecurityManager removal #20702

Open

theresa-m requested a review from JasonFengJ9 November 28, 2024 19:48

JasonFengJ9 reviewed Nov 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 2 times, most recently from ac1f215 to 4f82040 Compare December 2, 2024 18:01

keithc-ca requested changes Dec 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 2 times, most recently from 25b945a to f876cb1 Compare December 4, 2024 19:46

Disable System.security reflection test

b798307

... from Java8andUp test_getDeclaredFieldLjava_lang_String Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch from 0ba0e18 to b798307 Compare December 6, 2024 20:24

theresa-m requested a review from keithc-ca December 6, 2024 21:04

keithc-ca reviewed Dec 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 2 times, most recently from 8926087 to e998852 Compare December 9, 2024 13:33

theresa-m requested a review from keithc-ca December 9, 2024 16:28

keithc-ca requested changes Dec 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch 2 times, most recently from 67adc10 to cc0f67c Compare December 9, 2024 19:19

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch from cc0f67c to 8003cdd Compare December 10, 2024 02:24

This was referenced Dec 10, 2024

Update SecurityManagerWarnings to match OpenJ9 stack trace ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk#905

Merged

Update SecurityManagerWarnings to match OpenJ9 stack trace ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk24#1

Merged

JasonFengJ9 mentioned this pull request Dec 10, 2024

JDK25 bring up #20794

Merged

keithc-ca requested changes Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

jcl/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java Show resolved Hide resolved

Supress warning for System.initSecurityManager

edb99e8

Signed-off-by: Theresa Mammarella <[email protected]>

theresa-m force-pushed the fix_20563 branch from 8003cdd to edb99e8 Compare December 10, 2024 15:19

keithc-ca approved these changes Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

tajila approved these changes Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

keithc-ca merged commit db18829 into eclipse-openj9:master Dec 10, 2024
3 of 6 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

JDK24: Permanently Disable the Security Manager #20625

JDK24: Permanently Disable the Security Manager #20625

theresa-m commented Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

theresa-m Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

llxia Nov 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tajila commented Nov 20, 2024

JasonFengJ9 left a comment

JasonFengJ9 Nov 20, 2024

theresa-m Nov 20, 2024

JasonFengJ9 Nov 21, 2024

theresa-m Nov 22, 2024

JasonFengJ9 Nov 28, 2024

theresa-m Nov 29, 2024

JasonFengJ9 Dec 5, 2024

keithc-ca Dec 5, 2024

pshipton commented Nov 20, 2024

JasonFengJ9 left a comment

JasonFengJ9 Nov 24, 2024

theresa-m Nov 25, 2024

theresa-m Nov 28, 2024

theresa-m commented Nov 25, 2024

JasonFengJ9 commented Nov 25, 2024

JasonFengJ9 Nov 28, 2024

JasonFengJ9 Nov 28, 2024

JasonFengJ9 Nov 28, 2024

JasonFengJ9 Nov 28, 2024

JasonFengJ9 commented Dec 6, 2024

JasonFengJ9 commented Dec 6, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 6, 2024

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pshipton commented Dec 6, 2024

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 9, 2024

theresa-m commented Dec 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

theresa-m commented Dec 10, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 10, 2024

keithc-ca left a comment

		@@ -1265,6 +1265,10 @@ static void checkTmpDir() {

		/[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 9]/
		static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {

-static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {
+static void initSecurityManager(ClassLoader applicationClassLoader) {
+	String javaSecurityManager = internalGetProperties().getProperty("java.security.manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$
+	if (null == javaSecurityManager) {
+		/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18]*/
+		throwUOEFromSetSM = true;
+		/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */
+		/* Do nothing. */
+		/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 18 */
+	} else if ("disallow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$
+		/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11]*/
+		throwUOEFromSetSM = true;
+		/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */
+		/* Do nothing. */
+		/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION > 11 */
+	} else {
+/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24]*/
+		/*[MSG "K0B04", "A command line option has attempted to allow or enable the Security Manager. Enabling a Security Manager is not supported."]*/
+		throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0B04")); //$NON-NLS-1$
+/*[ELSE] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */
+		if ("allow".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$
+			/* Do nothing. */
+		} else {
+/*[IF JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17]*/
+			initialErr.println("WARNING: A command line option has enabled the Security Manager"); //$NON-NLS-1$
+			initialErr.println("WARNING: The Security Manager is deprecated and will be removed in a future release"); //$NON-NLS-1$
+/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 17 */
+			if (javaSecurityManager.isEmpty() || "default".equals(javaSecurityManager)) { //$NON-NLS-1$
+				setSecurityManager(new SecurityManager());
+			} else {
+				try {
+					Constructor<?> constructor = Class.forName(javaSecurityManager, true, applicationClassLoader).getConstructor();
+					constructor.setAccessible(true);
+					setSecurityManager((SecurityManager)constructor.newInstance());
+				} catch (Throwable e) {
+					/*[MSG "K0631", "JVM can't set custom SecurityManager due to {0}"]*/
+					throw new Error(Msg.getString("K0631", e.toString()), e); //$NON-NLS-1$
+				}
+			}
+		}
+/*[ENDIF] JAVA_SPEC_VERSION >= 24 */
+	}
+}

JDK24: Permanently Disable the Security Manager #20625

JDK24: Permanently Disable the Security Manager #20625

Conversation

theresa-m commented Nov 18, 2024 • edited Loading

theresa-m Nov 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

llxia Nov 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tajila commented Nov 20, 2024

JasonFengJ9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pshipton commented Nov 20, 2024

JasonFengJ9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

theresa-m commented Nov 25, 2024

JasonFengJ9 commented Nov 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JasonFengJ9 commented Dec 6, 2024

JasonFengJ9 commented Dec 6, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 6, 2024

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024 • edited Loading

pshipton commented Dec 6, 2024

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 9, 2024

theresa-m commented Dec 10, 2024 • edited Loading

theresa-m commented Dec 10, 2024

keithc-ca commented Dec 10, 2024

keithc-ca left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

theresa-m commented Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

theresa-m Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

llxia Nov 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

theresa-m commented Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

theresa-m commented Dec 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading