Re: gcj-security and some issues

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de> writes:

>> I *think* this would be all that is needed to implement the
>> AcessController. I think this could be done anytime, and as soon as
>> gcj applies Codesoures to its classes one can start testing the
>> implemention.

Michael> Your analysis seems quite correct BUT the biggest problem yet
Michael> is that StackTrace's implementation is just crap. The
Michael> solution you provided is nearly the same I did here some days
Michael> ago until I found out that StrackTrace is so dumb (it calls
Michael> external apps to analyze the stack ...). Bryce McKinley is
Michael> working on a better solution. The base has to be built first
Michael> before we can build the roof.

Does Bryce's patch address this?  I wasn't sure.  Anyway, I think it
would be fine to put in a fix for AccessController now, and then fix
it up later when StackTrace changes (and we have to fix up its calles
anyway).  I think it is pretty important to get the base security
stuff working, even if it is inefficient for a little while, in order
to do better testing to let us start putting in whatever other fixes
we need.  (For instance, things like wrapping getProperties in
doPrivileged.)

Tom