gcj-security and some issues

Tom Tromey tromey@redhat.com
Wed Apr 28 16:32:00 GMT 2004

>>>>> "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


More information about the Java mailing list