Andrew Haley wrote: > Jeroen Frijters writes: > > Tom Tromey wrote: > > > >>>>> "Roman" == Roman Kennke <roman@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > Roman> We are using the SystemProperties class throughout the > > > Classpath code to > > > Roman> access system properties and avoid the security checks in > > > Roman> java.lang.System. However, I come to think that this > > > is no good the way > > > Roman> it is. This class is public and nothing prevents use > > > of this class from > > > Roman> application code. > > > > > > As I recall things in gnu.classpath should not be available to > > > application code. The system class loader, or something, has to > > > enforce this. > > > > That's correct. The (default) system class loader calls > > SecurityManager.checkPackageAccess() in loadClass(String,boolean). > > > > > I'm having some trouble with the details but I know > Jeroen knows the > > > details here... > > > > I don't remember the details of the rest of the story, but > earlier in > > this thread Casey posted a (very small) patch that enables this > > infrastructure and protects the gnu.classpath. package. > > I'm sure we don't do the right thing in gcj. This test case > (apprended) should do: > > Checking class [Lxxx.ttt; > checkPackageAccess sun.reflect.misc > checkPackageAccess sun.reflect.misc > checkPackageAccess xxx > > but on gcj does: > > Checking class [Lxxx.ttt; > checkPackageAccess xxx I assume this is because gcj uses its own system class loader that does not yet include the checkPackageAccess call. It should be fairly trivial to add. Regards, Jeroen
