Re: RFC: AccessController merge

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Gary Benson writes:
 > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > Gary Benson writes:
 > > > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > > > I'm a bit concerned about efficiency.  For one example: OK, we
 > > > > walk the stack -- we have to do that -- but we create a string
 > > > > for every method name , and the only purpose of doing so AFAICS
 > > > > is to compare it with "doPrivileged".  We then throw away all of
 > > > > those strings we so laboriously constructed...
 > > > 
 > > > I see what you mean.  Another thing is that if there is a
 > > > doPrivileged there then a chunk of the generated stack trace will
 > > > be ignored.  I guess Casey wanted the code he put in stacktrace.cc
 > > > to be generic.
 > > > 
 > > > > I suppose this should go in, but we should study profile data
 > > > > and make efficiency improvments if required before release.
 > > > 
 > > > Should I commit now, or wait for other comments?
 > > 
 > > Commit this version, but don't go away and start something else!
 > > We need something decently efficient.
 > 
 > Ok, committed.  The code won't be called at present anyway, not before
 > SecurityManager is updated to use it, and even then it won't be called
 > unless a security manager is in force.

That happens quite a lot, even in applications that you wonldn't have
thought were particularly security-critical.  I don't know why.

 > What should I do first, update SecurityManager, or make
 > AccessController more efficient?

Do the Right Thing.  I trust your taste and good judgement...

Andrew.