[jdk25] RFR: 8359870: JVM crashes in AccessInternal::PostRuntimeDispatch

2025-07-02 Thread Kevin Walls
Clean backport to JDK 25. This change recently integrated in JDK 26 and is through tiers 1 - 4 so far. - Commit messages: - Backport 13a3927855da61fe27f3b43e5e4755d0c5ac5a16 Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26088/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=26

Re: RFR: 8346255: java/lang/management/ThreadMXBean/VirtualThreadDeadlocks.java finds no deadlock [v2]

2025-05-08 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 8 May 2025 19:52:17 GMT, Patricio Chilano Mateo wrote: >> Please review this small test fix. We need to make sure the two threads are >> blocked on the expected locks before invoking findMonitorDeadlockedThreads. >> In the failing cases, one of the threads is seen as blocked while wait

Re: RFR: 8336289: Obliterate most references to _snprintf in the Windows JDK [v5]

2025-02-28 Thread Kevin Walls
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 05:12:42 GMT, Julian Waters wrote: >> snprintf has been available for all officially and unofficially supported >> compilers for Windows, Visual Studio since version 2015 and gcc since, well, >> forever. snprintf is conforming to C99 since the start when compiling using >>

Re: RFR: 8336289: Obliterate most references to _snprintf in the Windows JDK [v5]

2025-02-27 Thread Kevin Walls
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 05:12:42 GMT, Julian Waters wrote: >> snprintf has been available for all officially and unofficially supported >> compilers for Windows, Visual Studio since version 2015 and gcc since, well, >> forever. snprintf is conforming to C99 since the start when compiling using >>

Re: RFR: 8336289: Obliterate most references to _snprintf in the Windows JDK [v5]

2025-02-27 Thread Kevin Walls
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 05:12:42 GMT, Julian Waters wrote: >> snprintf has been available for all officially and unofficially supported >> compilers for Windows, Visual Studio since version 2015 and gcc since, well, >> forever. snprintf is conforming to C99 since the start when compiling using >>

Re: RFR: 8336017: Deprecate java.util.logging.LoggingMXBean, its implementation, and accessor method for removal

2025-02-05 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:51:25 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> java.util.logging.LoggingMXBean and >> java.util.logging.LogManager::getLoggingMXBean are deprecated since >> JDK-8139982 in JDK 9. >> >> These deprecations should be uprated to state they are for future removal. >> >> java.util.logging.

Re: RFR: 8336017: Deprecate java.util.logging.LoggingMXBean, its implementation, and accessor method for removal

2025-01-23 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:23:37 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: > java.util.logging.LoggingMXBean and > java.util.logging.LogManager::getLoggingMXBean are deprecated since > JDK-8139982 in JDK 9. > > These deprecations should be uprated to state they are for

RFR: 8336017: Deprecate java.util.logging.LoggingMXBean, its implementation, and accessor method for removal

2025-01-23 Thread Kevin Walls
java.util.logging.LoggingMXBean and java.util.logging.LogManager::getLoggingMXBean are deprecated since JDK-8139982 in JDK 9. These deprecations should be uprated to state they are for future removal. java.util.logging.Logging (implements LoggingMXBean) should also be deprecated for removal.

Re: RFR: 8345782: Refining the cases that libjsig deprecation warning is issued [v2]

2025-01-09 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:03:06 GMT, Joakim Nordström wrote: >> Could I get a review of this fix to refine the warnings printed by `libjsig` >> when using the deprecated `signal()`/`sigset()` functions? >> >> Currently the libjsig library supports chaining `signal()` and `sigset()`. >> With these

Re: RFR: 8345782: Refining the cases that libjsig deprecation warning is issued [v2]

2025-01-09 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:03:06 GMT, Joakim Nordström wrote: >> Could I get a review of this fix to refine the warnings printed by `libjsig` >> when using the deprecated `signal()`/`sigset()` functions? >> >> Currently the libjsig library supports chaining `signal()` and `sigset()`. >> With these

Re: RFR: 8345799: Update copyright year to 2024 for core-libs in files where it was missed [v2]

2024-12-09 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:03:06 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been >> properly updated. This should be fixed. >> >> I have located these modified files using: >> >> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sor

Re: RFR: 8345799: Update copyright year to 2024 for core-libs in files where it was missed [v2]

2024-12-09 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:03:06 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been >> properly updated. This should be fixed. >> >> I have located these modified files using: >> >> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sor

Re: RFR: 8345565: Remove remaining SecurityManager motivated APIs from sun.reflect.util

2024-12-05 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 10:20:50 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: > We hollowed out ReflectUtil as one of the early steps when removing the code > for running in the SecurityManager execution mode. Most of the usages have > now been removed so the empty (and unused) methods can be removed. FieldUtils > and

Re: RFR: 8345286: Remove use of SecurityManager API from misc areas [v9]

2024-12-04 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 09:03:20 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: > Although trivial, there are some changes to files from the serviceability > area. So it would be good if someone from that area could review this too. Yes, looks good. I will update https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/22478 to avoid the c

Re: RFR: 8345286: Remove use of SecurityManager API from misc areas [v9]

2024-12-04 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:12:13 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: >> Can I please get a review of this change which removes usages of >> SecurityManager related APIs and some leftover related to SecurityManager >> changes? >> >> This addresses https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345286. Most of these >>

Re: RFR: 8337199: Add jcmd Thread.vthread_scheduler and Thread.vthread_pollers diagnostic commands [v2]

2024-11-28 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 15:52:01 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/dcmd/thread/VThreadCommandsTest.java line >> 96: >> >>> 94: .shouldContain("Read I/O pollers:") >>> 95: .shouldContain("Write I/O pollers:") >>> 96: .should

Re: RFR: 8337199: Add jcmd Thread.vthread_scheduler and Thread.vthread_pollers diagnostic commands [v2]

2024-11-28 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 15:54:54 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Adds `jcmd Thread.vthread_scheduler` to print the virtual thread >> scheduler and `jcmd Thread.vthread_pollers` to print the I/O pollers >> that support virtual threads doing blocking network I/O operations. >> >> This is a subset of t

Re: RFR: 8337199: Add jcmd Thread.vthread_scheduler and Thread.vthread_pollers diagnostic commands

2024-11-28 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:59:17 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: > Adds `jcmd Thread.vthread_scheduler` to print the virtual thread > scheduler and `jcmd Thread.vthread_pollers` to print the I/O pollers > that support virtual threads doing blocking network I/O operations. > > This is a subset of the di

Re: RFR: 8344149: Remove usage of Security Manager from java.rmi

2024-11-18 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:12:34 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote: > First cut at removal of Security Manager stuff from RMI. > > This covers just about every SM-related case in RMI, except for a bit of > package checking in MarshalInputStream. This will be handled separately. It's > covered by [JDK-834432

Re: RFR: 8344056: Use markdown format for man pages

2024-11-13 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:05:25 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > Currently, the man pages are stored as troff (a text format) in the open > repo, and a content-wise identical copy is stored as markdown (another text > format) in the closed repo. > > Since markdown is preferred to troff in terms o

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v11]

2024-11-12 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:44:55 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v10]

2024-11-12 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:01:33 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

2024-10-21 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:03:30 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

2024-10-18 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:03:30 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8337408: Use GetTempPath2 API instead of GetTempPath [v2]

2024-09-26 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 20:28:28 GMT, Dhamoder Nalla wrote: >> Use the GetTempPath2 APIs instead of the GetTempPath APIs in native code >> across the OpenJDK repository to retrieve the temporary directory path, as >> GetTempPath2 provides enhanced security. While GetTempPath may still >> function

Re: RFR: 8340176: Replace usage of -noclassgc with -Xnoclassgc in test/jdk/java/lang/management/MemoryMXBean/LowMemoryTest2.java

2024-09-16 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:21:22 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: > Can I please get a review of this test-only change which replaces the usage > of `-noclassgc` with `-Xnoclassgc` option when launching the test? > > As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8340176, the `-noclassgc` is > an undocum

Re: RFR: 8337408: Use GetTempPath2 API instead of GetTempPath [v2]

2024-09-11 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 20:28:28 GMT, Dhamoder Nalla wrote: >> Use the GetTempPath2 APIs instead of the GetTempPath APIs in native code >> across the OpenJDK repository to retrieve the temporary directory path, as >> GetTempPath2 provides enhanced security. While GetTempPath may still >> function

Re: RFR: 8338890: Add monitoring/management interface for the virtual thread scheduler [v4]

2024-09-09 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 06:28:45 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> This PR proposes to add a JDK-specific monitoring and management interface >> for the virtual thread scheduler. The interface is named >> [VirtualThreadSchedulerMXBean](https://download.java.net/java/early_access/loom/docs/api/jdk.manageme

Re: RFR: 8338890: Add monitoring/management interface for the virtual thread scheduler [v3]

2024-09-06 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 17:54:46 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> This PR proposes to add a JDK-specific monitoring and management interface >> for the virtual thread scheduler. The interface is named >> [VirtualThreadSchedulerMXBean](https://download.java.net/java/early_access/loom/docs/api/jdk.manageme

Re: RFR: 8337408: Use GetTempPath2 API instead of GetTempPath [v2]

2024-08-21 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 20:28:28 GMT, Dhamoder Nalla wrote: >> Use the GetTempPath2 APIs instead of the GetTempPath APIs in native code >> across the OpenJDK repository to retrieve the temporary directory path, as >> GetTempPath2 provides enhanced security. While GetTempPath may still >> function

Re: RFR: 8336254: Virtual thread implementation + test updates [v2]

2024-07-23 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:59:54 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Bringover some of the changes accumulated in the loom repo to the main line, >> most of these changes are test updates and have been baking in the loom repo >> for several months. The motive is partly to reduce the large set of changes >

RFR: 8335684: ThreadCpuTime.java should pause like ThreadCpuTimeArray.java

2024-07-04 Thread Kevin Walls
There are two similarly names tests. Recently: JDK-8335124: com/sun/management/ThreadMXBean/ThreadCpuTimeArray.java failed with CPU time out of expected range ...made a simple change to try and avoid noisy test failures. The same fix should be applied here to ThreadCpuTime.java. Also removing a

Re: RFR: 8334287: Man page update for jstatd deprecation

2024-06-25 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:05:51 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: > Man page update for JDK-8327793 which marked jstatd as deprecated for removal > in JDK 24. Thanks Alan and David, moving to a single line: JSTATD(1) JDK Co

Re: RFR: 8334287: Man page update for jstatd deprecation [v2]

2024-06-25 Thread Kevin Walls
> Man page update for JDK-8327793 which marked jstatd as deprecated for removal > in JDK 24. Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: text update - Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19829

Re: RFR: 8334287: Man page update for jstatd deprecation

2024-06-21 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:05:51 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: > Man page update for JDK-8327793 which marked jstatd as deprecated for removal > in JDK 24. The updated man page looks like: JSTATD(1) JDK Co

RFR: 8334287: Man page update for jstatd deprecation

2024-06-21 Thread Kevin Walls
Man page update for JDK-8327793 which marked jstatd as deprecated for removal in JDK 24. - Commit messages: - 8334287: Man page update for jstatd deprecation Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19829/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=19829&range=00 Is

Integrated: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal

2024-06-21 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 13:09:06 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: > jstatd is an RMI server application which monitors HotSpot VMs, and provides > an interface to the monitoring tool jstat, for use across a remote RMI > connection. > > RMI is not how modern applications communicate. It is a

Re: RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal [v7]

2024-06-21 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:13:38 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> jstatd is an RMI server application which monitors HotSpot VMs, and provides >> an interface to the monitoring tool jstat, for use across a remote RMI >> connection. >> >> RMI is not how modern applicat

Re: RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal [v7]

2024-06-21 Thread Kevin Walls
and configuration difficulties with firewalls. > > The jstatd tool should be removed. Deprecating and removing jstatd will not > affect usage of jstat for monitoring local VMs using the Attach API. Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since

Re: RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal [v4]

2024-06-21 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:28:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> For the Security Manager, the warning was worded a little differently: >> >> "WARNING: The Security Manager is deprecated and will be removed in a future >> release" >> >> I think that wording is more clear. The current wording could be

Re: RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal [v6]

2024-06-21 Thread Kevin Walls
and configuration difficulties with firewalls. > > The jstatd tool should be removed. Deprecating and removing jstatd will not > affect usage of jstat for monitoring local VMs using the Attach API. Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional com

Re: RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal [v5]

2024-06-21 Thread Kevin Walls
and configuration difficulties with firewalls. > > The jstatd tool should be removed. Deprecating and removing jstatd will not > affect usage of jstat for monitoring local VMs using the Attach API. Kevin Walls has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a reb

[jdk23] Integrated: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed

2024-06-21 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:24:35 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: > 844: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not > allowed This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 23f2c97f Author: Kevin Walls URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/

Re: [jdk23] RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed

2024-06-21 Thread Kevin Walls
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:24:35 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: > 844: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not > allowed Thanks Daniel. Testing automated and manual looks good in 24 and in this 23 backport, so I'll get this integrated. - PR Com

[jdk23] RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed

2024-06-20 Thread Kevin Walls
844: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed - Commit messages: - Backport bcf4bb4882e06d8c52f6eb4e9c4e027ba0622c5f Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19810/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=19810&range=00 Issue:

Integrated: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed

2024-06-19 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:28:28 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: > JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.s

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v19]

2024-06-19 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:17:46 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of >> AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. >> >> Until then, updates are neede

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v19]

2024-06-19 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:21:45 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: > The code changes look good to me (if a bit verbose) and the test changes look > reasonable. It could be beneficial to add some more tests in the future > involving monitoring and getting the subject from within a monitored MBean. Yes, agr

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v16]

2024-06-18 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 11:33:51 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> Agree with Kevin. To minimize risk, especially since this is to fix a >> significant regression and we are in RDP1, we are really trying to preserve >> the existing code as much as possible, even though it could be improved. > > It is als

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v19]

2024-06-18 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v18]

2024-06-18 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 20:51:34 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of >> AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. >> >> Until then, updates are neede

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v18]

2024-06-18 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 20:51:34 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of >> AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. >> >> Until then, updates are neede

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v18]

2024-06-17 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v17]

2024-06-17 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v16]

2024-06-17 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 13:58:11 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - style update >> - whitespace > > src/java.management.rmi/share

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v15]

2024-06-17 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:33:08 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - leave noPermissionsACC in place for now >> - leave noPermissionsACC in place for n

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v16]

2024-06-17 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v15]

2024-06-17 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:33:47 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - leave noPermissionsACC in place for now >> - leave noPermissionsACC in place for now

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v10]

2024-06-17 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 14:48:14 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > > Does noPermissionsACC add anything? > > I don't know. My principal for this code change is that nothing is changed > for the SM-is-allowed case. I've put back the noPermissionsACC for this change, it does not have to be removed in this

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v15]

2024-06-17 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v13]

2024-06-17 Thread Kevin Walls
On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 01:54:34 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Unnecessary catches to remove > > src/java.management/share/classes/javax/management/mon

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v14]

2024-06-17 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v10]

2024-06-14 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 14:51:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> It needs to recognise and throw RuntimeException so that a SecurityException >> isn't wrapped in a PrivilegedActionException (which gets caught by those >> blocks of code which call extractException(pe) and look at what Exception >> it c

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v13]

2024-06-14 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v10]

2024-06-14 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:03:07 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Separate SM allowed and not allowed cases > > src/java.management.rmi/share/class

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v6]

2024-06-14 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:52:51 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >>Undo test policy updates > > src/java.management/share/classes/javax/management/mon

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v12]

2024-06-14 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v10]

2024-06-14 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:44:17 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> src/java.management/share/classes/com/sun/jmx/remote/internal/ServerNotifForwarder.java >> line 353: >> >>> 351: } else { >>> 352: return Subject.getSubject(Acc

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v11]

2024-06-14 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v10]

2024-06-14 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:04:06 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Separate SM allowed and not allowed cases > > src/java.management/share/class

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v10]

2024-06-14 Thread Kevin Walls
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:09:46 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > I don't quite understand why there is no more `noPermissionsACC` in > `Monotor.java`. This looks like the only behavior change when SM is allowed. > The other source change looks fine to me. Does noPermissionsACC add anything? Maybe I'm r

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v6]

2024-06-14 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:03:17 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >>Undo test policy updates > > src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/rem

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v3]

2024-06-13 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:01:45 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Thanks I'll go through the above comments and update - some of the changes I >> see are unnecessary and from when I was trying migrating to callAs, and >> doPrivileged, and yes they can be simpler. >> >> On the allowSecurityMananger check

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v10]

2024-06-13 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v9]

2024-06-13 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v8]

2024-06-13 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v6]

2024-06-13 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:41:36 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >>Undo test policy updates > > src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/rem

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v6]

2024-06-13 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:42:27 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >>Undo test policy updates > > src/java.management/share/class

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v7]

2024-06-13 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v4]

2024-06-12 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:55:31 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> Hmm I may have fixed that since changing the policy files, as I'm not seeing >> the problem without that AuthPermission any more. Am just retesting >> everything before updating this... > > (Same with other policy files in which the perm

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v6]

2024-06-12 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v5]

2024-06-12 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v4]

2024-06-12 Thread Kevin Walls
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:31:26 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> test/jdk/javax/management/remote/mandatory/notif/policy.negative line 7: >> >>> 5: permission javax.management.MBeanPermission >>> "[domain:type=NB,name=2]", "addNotificationListener"; >>> 6: permission javax.management.MBeanPermi

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v3]

2024-06-12 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:31:03 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> src/java.management/share/classes/com/sun/jmx/remote/internal/ServerNotifForwarder.java >> line 350: >> >>> 348: @SuppressWarnings("removal") >>> 349: private Subject getSubject() { >>> 350: Subject subject = null; >> >> J

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v3]

2024-06-12 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:55:44 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Sean comments > > src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMICo

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v4]

2024-06-12 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v3]

2024-06-12 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:53:09 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Sean comments > > src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMICo

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v3]

2024-06-12 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:58:54 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMIConnectionImpl.java >> line 1436: >> >>> 1434: } else { >>> 1435: // ACC is present, we have a Subject and SM is >>> permitted: >>> 1436:

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v3]

2024-06-12 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:59:31 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Sean comments > > src/java.management/share/classes/javax/management/monitor/Monitor

Re: RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal [v4]

2024-06-11 Thread Kevin Walls
and configuration difficulties with firewalls. > > The jstatd tool should be removed. Deprecating and removing jstatd will not > affect usage of jstat for monitoring local VMs using the Attach API. Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional com

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v3]

2024-06-11 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:03:58 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Sean comments > > src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMICo

Re: RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal [v3]

2024-06-11 Thread Kevin Walls
and configuration difficulties with firewalls. > > The jstatd tool should be removed. Deprecating and removing jstatd will not > affect usage of jstat for monitoring local VMs using the Attach API. Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional comm

Re: RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal [v2]

2024-06-11 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:54:36 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote: >> jstatd is an RMI server application which monitors HotSpot VMs, and provides >> an interface to the monitoring tool jstat, for use across a remote RMI >> connection. >> >> RMI is not how modern applicat

Re: RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal

2024-06-11 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 13:35:19 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: > The sun.jvmstat.monitor.remote package is not exported so I don't think > adding `@Deprecated` makes sense. Sure, happy to not add annotations in sun.jvmstat.monitor.remote (RemoteHost.java, RemoteVm.java). - PR Comment: htt

Re: RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal [v2]

2024-06-11 Thread Kevin Walls
and configuration difficulties with firewalls. > > The jstatd tool should be removed. Deprecating and removing jstatd will not > affect usage of jstat for monitoring local VMs using the Attach API. Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit sin

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v3]

2024-06-11 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v2]

2024-06-11 Thread Kevin Walls
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 14:02:17 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> Kevin Walls has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> More consistent style of calls and comments. > > test/jdk/javax/man

RFR: 8327793: Deprecate jstatd for removal

2024-06-11 Thread Kevin Walls
jstatd is an RMI server application which monitors HotSpot VMs, and provides an interface to the monitoring tool jstat, for use across a remote RMI connection. RMI is not how modern applications communicate. It is an old transport with long term security concerns, and configuration difficulties

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed [v2]

2024-06-10 Thread Kevin Walls
> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of > AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. > > Until then, updates are needed to not require setting > -Djava.security.manager=allow to use JMX authentication. Kevin Wa

Re: RFR: 8333344: JMX attaching of Subject does not work when security manager not allowed

2024-06-10 Thread Kevin Walls
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:28:25 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> JMX uses APIs related to the Security Mananger which are deprecated. Use of >> AccessControlContext will be removed when Security Manager is removed. >> >> Until then, updates are needed to not require setting >> -Djava.security.manage

  1   2   >