Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 33225 invoked from network); 11 May 2005 11:19:11 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 May 2005 11:19:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 22162 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2005 11:22:46 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 22100 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2005 11:22:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 22076 invoked by uid 99); 11 May 2005 11:22:46 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of green@redhat.com designates 66.187.233.31 as permitted sender) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 May 2005 04:22:46 -0700 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4BBJ256030988 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 07:19:02 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4BBIpO21658 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 07:18:51 -0400 Received: from vpn50-64.rdu.redhat.com (vpn50-64.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.64]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j4BBIma8025649 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 07:18:50 -0400 Subject: Re: Java Security for Harmony From: Anthony Green To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: <4281E2A4.9030306@algroup.co.uk> References: <5f21a0a9577705abd531cebc48d11085@earthlink.net> <42807005.4070500@algroup.co.uk> <01f801c55541$f26d9430$8400000a@MEANMACHINE> <4280D63C.2060801@algroup.co.uk> <4281D36A.3090303@algroup.co.uk> <1115808071.4765.153.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4281E2A4.9030306@algroup.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Red Hat, Inc. Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 04:18:04 -0700 Message-Id: <1115810284.4765.165.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 11:47 +0100, Ben Laurie wrote: > > No, a conforming implementation requires a bytecode verifier. > > I thought we'd established that it didn't? That is, verification must > occur, but it can occur at runtime. I'm sorry, I didn't follow the discussion earlier. My understanding is that section 2.17.3 of the Java VM spec mandates that bytecode verification happen during the linking stage. http://java.sun.com/docs/books/vmspec/2nd-edition/html/Concepts.doc.html#22574 AG