On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 3:29 AM Darran Lofthouse <darran.lofthouse@jboss.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 8:17 PM Richard Opalka <ropalka@redhat.com> wrote:
I agree with all that has been said above.
We should also start preparing our users for the upcoming future without Security Manager
and start deprecating (for "removal") affected APIs, specifically affected classes, methods & fields
to let them know in advance there will be no alternative.

I think we need to be a little bit cautious on this one and I think this goes back to the trigger for Brian starting this thread.

The more we bombard projects with deprecation warnings when they use our APIs the more they will want to get ahead and remove the security manager integration from their project.

Until WildFly moves to a minimum JDK version of Java 25 or moves to a minimum Jakarta EE version of 11 or later it is quite possible that these security manager integrations will remain required for libraries integrated in WildFly (unless exclusively used for Jakarta EE 11 or later).

+1.

We should also have clear best practices in place before we give any signals that people should change things. Particularly for the case where people need to compile against SE versions where the SM classes are present but may run in ones where they are not. For example how to efficiently replace the class 'if (System.getSecurityManager() != null)' or 'if (WildFlySecurityManager.isChecking())' guards with something that will work when there is no SecurityManager class at runtime. Maybe that's just a matter of people starting those 'if' conditions with 'Runtime.version().feature() >= 24 &&' or 'cachedResultOfVersionCheck &&'.


 
Due to time constraints It is not possible to do it all at once in one major WildFly release in my opinion.
But the PARENT "SM deprecation" task should be created so we can distribute its subtasks across upcoming WildFly releases.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 7:09 PM Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry@redhat.com> wrote:


On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:12 AM David Lloyd <david.lloyd@redhat.com> wrote:
I would follow on and say that if you do happen to notice some obscure security-related JDK API which produces an error starting on Java 24, the simplest solution is to wrap it in a version check like this:

    if (Runtime.version().feature() < 24) {
        // the call will work
    }

And make sure you are using CI to test on both <24 and >=24 in this case. 

+1. Testing on the latest SE, even EA releases, is really good practice. The next LTS release is less than a year away and for sure we'll get demand to support it. If you're testing routinely on the latest from SE you'll be ahead of the game.


On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 9:27 AM Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry@redhat.com> wrote:
tl;dr; Do not remove security manager calls from WildFly or its components! Not unless you want and are able to maintain a branch supporting them for many years.


I don't know all the details, but from a few discussions I've seen in the last hour it seems that the promised removal of runtime support for the Security Manager[1] has landed in an SE 24 update.

This change means in an SE 24 environment you can no longer enable the SM and it will fail if you try. So this will certainly affect our code that's meant to run on SE 24 and later; we'll need to adapt to not try and turn it on.

What this *should not* mean is calls to SM-related APIs in SE will fail. They should still work; they just don't do any enforcement. This isn't some odd situation since for decades now the vast majority of calls to SM APIs don't result in enforcement -- because the user doesn't enable the SM.

WildFly is going to support Java SE versions where the SM works for many many more years. It's only in the upcoming WF 35 that we're dropping support for SE 11. So who knows how much longer we'll need to support SE 21.

If you break SM support in a component, that stream will no longer be usable in typical WF!

We'll need to do things to prepare for the day when SM APIs are removed from SE and we shouldn't ignore that task. But please don't break things.

Kudos to those of you like Richard Opalka and James Perkins who are keeping an eye on things and noticed this promptly.

--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP
WildFly Project Lead
He/Him/His
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave@lists.jboss.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy
List Archives: https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message/THIQ2ZQ5SDMCWIFH2J4CDENR7H2IXBCH/


--
- DML • he/him


--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP
WildFly Project Lead
He/Him/His
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave@lists.jboss.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy
List Archives: https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message/DSQEFIOESL4MEQ3PRGJVLP4EL47AYESG/
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave@lists.jboss.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy
List Archives: https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message/CWIVBKR6OBM7TK5BXOU25L7SJDT7EFLL/
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave@lists.jboss.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy
List Archives: https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message/JM64RU5MQ3V2HILJXAXUOVC6HOZ3MBXZ/


--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Architect, Red Hat JBoss EAP
WildFly Project Lead
He/Him/His