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

List:       openjdk-distro-pkg-dev
Subject:    [rfc][icedtea-web] fix for RH816592
From:       dbhole () redhat ! com (Deepak Bhole)
Date:       2012-06-29 16:35:42
Message-ID: 20120629163542.GY2966 () redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

* Jiri Vanek <jvanek at redhat.com> [2012-06-26 07:42]:
> On 06/20/2012 04:38 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > * Jiri Vanek<jvanek at redhat.com>  [2012-06-19 08:09]:
> > > On 05/24/2012 09:04 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > > > * Jiri Vanek<jvanek at redhat.com>   [2012-05-24 14:08]:
> > > > > On 05/24/2012 05:28 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > > > > > * Jiri Vanek<jvanek at redhat.com>    [2012-05-24 09:40]:
> > > > > > > On 05/23/2012 05:45 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 05/23/2012 05:36 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> > > > > snip
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi Jiri,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is still not solving the root issue -- why does the resource not
> > > > > > have an entry in the map? Whatever is getting that resource should be
> > > > > > adding it. getCodeSourceSecurity should only be doing a simple look up
> > > > > > on security and returning what is already known.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Deepak
> > > > > > 
> > > > > And when  an application directly inject to fields in \
> > > > > sun.misc.URLClassPath.java? Then my solution will be the only working one. \
> > > > > But yes. it is unlikely and I'm just protecting wrong solution (so pride of \
> > > > > it! :D) I will investigate more in way Omair suggested which looks much \
> > > > > more cmmon. 
> > > > 
> > > > Ah fair enough. So then all the places where we add resources ourselves
> > > > are correctly covered?
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Deepak
> > > 
> > > Hi! When Thomas patch is applied, then I believe all standard ways
> > > are covered. Monstrosities left behind are quite smoothly catch by
> > > this one. This one is also fixing minecraft issue you sent to me.
> > > (http://www.minecraft.net/classic/play).
> > > 
> > > I'm for both patches in for head. I have reviewed his work and
> > > prepared reproducer.. Just waiting to him for confirmation.
> > > 
> > > What do you think?
> > > 
> > 
> > Fair enough. OK for head.
> > 
> 
> I would like to backport it to 1.2 in week or two since push to head.
> 
> Possible?

Assuming no regressions showed up with any of the reproducers, yes, OK
for 1.2 now.

Cheers,
Deepak

> 
> J


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