Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7573 invoked from network); 25 Dec 2006 21:54:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Dec 2006 21:54:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 16783 invoked by uid 500); 25 Dec 2006 21:54:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 16746 invoked by uid 500); 25 Dec 2006 21:54:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 16736 invoked by uid 99); 25 Dec 2006 21:54:04 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:54:04 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of gshimansky@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.174 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.174] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:53:54 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z36so2903923uge for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:53:32 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=Wjgbb1NYvQsuJEEpxCws7Hvaa042cYZvw0OKMJ8CECjpXOD2Ij5XzLt0DKHX6d8NC3jX2KcM34jIN2O5K1JfjwamrPvFJb0hyfh26yOYnwcpOVQCnI09llsfh2Gq42/OfLanbtycClvRXOEdHrLuo1vzMRcQoTIUr/ddwy7yKEg= Received: by 10.66.232.9 with SMTP id e9mr16542146ugh.1167083605638; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:53:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.4? ( [91.76.77.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x26sm17332990ugc.2006.12.25.13.53.24; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:53:25 -0800 (PST) From: Gregory Shimansky To: dev@harmony.apache.org Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (HARMONY-2544) [drlvm][jvmti] Check of settable system properties Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 00:53:23 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <7709033.1165584201049.JavaMail.jira@brutus> <45868BAF.8070900@pobox.com> In-Reply-To: <45868BAF.8070900@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200612260053.23455.gshimansky@gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Monday 18 December 2006 15:38 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Ivan Popov wrote: > > I think VM should protect those properties which can affect VM > > behavior and lead to VM crash or malfunction if are set incorrectly in > > command line or by a JVMTI tools. I don't see any need for protecting > > other properties. > > I agree - also, any security implications for allowing some of these to > be changed? The properties which may lead to VM malfunction are those that are related to paths, like library and bootclasspath. Those which are protected by this patch are java.vm.vendor, java.vm.version, java.vm.name and java.vm.info. They may be changed safely I think. I could imagine an application which would depend on java.vm.vendor to be Sun and work differently in other cases. To debug such application the developer would probably want to change java.vm.vendor property to pretend that VM is Sun's. So there is a valid use case for changing this property, probably for other java.vm.* too. I think I'll close HARMONY-2544 as invalid. Reopen it if you disagree. > > Thanks. > > Ivan > > > > On 12/15/06, Gregory Shimansky wrote: > >> I could argue with Pavel that we have to have read only system > >> properties which cannot be set from JVMTI. The specification doesn't say > >> that it is necessary to have read only properties, it just mentions that > >> SetSystemProperty may return an error > >> JVMTI_ERROR_NOT_AVAILABLE >>i/jvmti.html#JVMTI_ERROR_NOT_AVAILABLE>if > >> > >> a property is not writable. But which properties are writable or not > >> is > >> not specified. > >> > >> From the patch it seems Sun doesn't allow JVMTI to set java.vm.vendor, > >> java.vm.version, java.vm.name and java.vm.info. But I don't really > >> like to > >> disallow things for no apparent reason. So my question is, should be > >> have read only properties like Sun? What do you think? > >> > >> 2006/12/8, Pavel Rebriy (JIRA) : > >> > [drlvm][jvmti] Check of settable system properties > >> > -------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > Key: HARMONY-2544 > >> > URL: > >> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2544 Project: Harmony > >> > Issue Type: Bug > >> > Components: DRLVM > >> > Reporter: Pavel Rebriy > >> > > >> > > >> > According to Java Specification [1] it is necessary to have some > >> > >> read only > >> > >> > system properties. > >> > > >> > Here is a test created on reference VM behavior to check if system > >> > property is settable or not. > >> > > >> > [1] > >> > >> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/jvmti/jvmti.html#SetSystemProp > >>erty > >> > >> > -- > >> > This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > >> > - > >> > If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the > >> > administrators: > >> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa > >> > - > >> > For more information on JIRA, see: > >> > >> http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Gregory Shimansky, Intel Middleware Products Division -- Gregory