[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-2d-dev
Subject:    [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [PATCH] Request for review: 6904882: java.awt.Font.createFont() causes AccessContro
From:       Igor.Nekrestyanov () Sun ! COM (Igor Nekrestyanov)
Date:       2010-02-05 22:42:28
Message-ID: 4B6C9ED4.7070004 () sun ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Sorry for delay, i thought this one was reviewed.

ok with me.

-igor

On 2/5/10 2:34 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 03.02.2010, 11:55 -0800 schrieb Phil Race:
>    
>> looks fine.
>>      
> Good! Needs another reviewer? Igor maybe, or Dmitri?
>
> Thanks, Roman
>
>
>    
>> -phil
>>
>> On 2/3/2010 11:35 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
>>      
>>> I moved the FontPrivilege test into open. I did one small change to it,
>>> instead of calling setSecurityManager() in the beginning of the test, I
>>> added the tag /security=java.lang.SecurityManager which should have
>>> about the same effect.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/6904882/webrev.02/
>>>
>>> Is this ok to push?
>>>
>>> Also needs one more review, Igor, Dmitri, anyone else left in 2d?
>>>
>>> /Roman
>>>
>>> Am Montag, den 30.11.2009, 11:49 -0800 schrieb Phil Race:
>>>        
>>>> Like the last one, this could use a regression test - even though
>>>> there's a JCK failure. FWIW a trivial one like this :-
>>>>
>>>> import java.awt.*;
>>>> import java.io.File;
>>>>
>>>> public class CreateFontSMTest {
>>>>        public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
>>>>            System.setSecurityManager(new SecurityManager());
>>>>            Font font = new Font("Dialog", Font.PLAIN, 12);
>>>>            System.out.println(font.getFontName());
>>>>        }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> will work, but I also found we already have a test .. which I
>>>> guess never got run :-(, called FontPrivilege.java that does
>>>> something very similar. Its also in closed and I leave it
>>>> up to you whether to open that or add a new one but opening
>>>> it would be best.
>>>>
>>>> -phil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Roman Kennke wrote:
>>>>          
>>>>> This patches fixes bug #6904882. As suggested by Phil it puts the whole
>>>>> static initializer in a privileged block, grouping the existing 4
>>>>> smaller blocks into one, and importantly including the offending
>>>>> File.exists() call. This requires to make the static fields non-final.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/6904882/webrev.00/
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok to commit?
>>>>>
>>>>> /Roman
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>
>>>        
>
>    


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]