[logback-user] SecurityManager issue using logback
Andrew Bourgeois
andrew.bourgeois at hotmail.com
Sat Nov 5 18:55:40 CET 2011
Ceki,
actually, a third option is not to use System.setProperty(...) for
java.security.policy, but pass it as a parameter when launching the app
(-Djava.security.policy=java.policy).
FYI: I only use System.setProperty(...) for small systests that I launch
from my IDE.
Best regards
Andrew Bourgeois
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Bourgeois
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 5:28 PM
To: logback users list
Subject: Re: [logback-user] SecurityManager issue using logback
Ceki,
you're right, I do get the exception when executing that block of code.
I have 2 workarounds for my problem:
1) Put the java.policy file into $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/security: That's too
dirty, I'll skip this one.
2) Initialize the security manager before initializing logback:
@Test
public void loggingAfterSecurityManager() {
System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
"./src/test/resources/java.policy");
if (System.getSecurityManager() == null) {
System.setSecurityManager(new RMISecurityManager());
}
Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SecurityManagerTest.class);
logger.debug("Policy location: {}",
System.getProperty("java.security.policy"));
System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
"./src/test/resources/java.policy");
}
The test passes because I did what I had to do before loading the logback
classes. The following doesn't pass:
@Test
public void loggingBeforeSecurityManager() {
Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SecurityManagerTest.class);
logger.debug("Policy location: {}",
System.getProperty("java.security.policy"));
System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
"./src/test/resources/java.policy");
if (System.getSecurityManager() == null) {
System.setSecurityManager(new RMISecurityManager());
}
logger.debug("Policy location: {}",
System.getProperty("java.security.policy"));
}
If I dare to initialize logback before initializing a security manager, once
I do it, it all goes wrong with code that uses the SecurityManager (so the
last logger.debug(...) fails!).
I'm not an expert so I can't say it's bad, but it's annoying.
Thank you for your help!
Best regards
Andrew Bourgeois
-----Original Message-----
From: ceki
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 4:25 PM
To: logback users list
Subject: Re: [logback-user] SecurityManager issue using logback
Thanks for the sample project. I can confirm that I observe a
AccessControlException when logback is present. The
AccessControlException is not thrown if slf4j-nop, slf4j-simple or
slf4j-log4j are used as the slf4j binding.
Although logback does not install its own SecurityManager or modify
the security configuration, it does attempt to determine whether it
has "getClassLoader" permission. See http://goo.gl/zASBm
Here is the code in question:
AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Boolean>() {
public Boolean run() {
try {
AccessController.checkPermission(
new RuntimePermission("getClassLoader"));
return true;
} catch (AccessControlException e) {
return false;
}
}
});
If the privileged block above code is removed, then the
AccessControlException goes away. The privileged block looks quite
legitimate to me so I don't think it's a bug in logback.
To convince yourself the the privileged block is key, you can remove
all logging related calls and all logging related dependencies, add
the privileged block at the beginning of the test. You should observe
an AccessControlException being thrown.
--
Ceki
http://twitter.com/#!/ceki
On 11/5/2011 1:42 PM, Andrew Bourgeois wrote:
> Ceki,
>
> I redid the test in a clean Maven project. I don't know if attachments
> will pass through, so:
>
> 1) pom.xml:
>
> <project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0"
> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
> xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0
> http://maven.apache.org/maven-v4_0_0.xsd">
> <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
> <name>test</name>
> <groupId>be.test.fun</groupId>
> <artifactId>test</artifactId>
> <version>0.1.0-RC1</version>
> <dependencies>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
> <version>1.6.0</version>
> </dependency>
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>log4j</groupId>
> <artifactId>log4j</artifactId>
> <version>1.2.16</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
> <artifactId>slf4j-log4j12</artifactId>
> <version>1.6.0</version>
> </dependency>
>
> <!--dependency>
> <groupId>ch.qos.logback</groupId>
> <artifactId>logback-core</artifactId>
> <version>1.0.0</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>ch.qos.logback</groupId>
> <artifactId>logback-classic</artifactId>
> <version>1.0.0</version>
> </dependency-->
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>junit</groupId>
> <artifactId>junit</artifactId>
> <version>4.4</version>
> <scope>test</scope>
> </dependency>
> </dependencies>
> <build>
> <resources>
> </resources>
> <plugins>
> <plugin>
> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
> <configuration>
> <source>1.6</source>
> <target>1.6</target>
> <verbose>true</verbose>
> </configuration>
> </plugin>
> </plugins>
> </build>
> </project>
>
> 2) The JUnit test:
>
> package be.test.fun;
>
> import org.junit.Test;
> import java.rmi.RMISecurityManager;
> import org.slf4j.Logger;
> import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
>
> public class SecurityManagerTest {
>
> @Test
> public void securityManagerWithLogs() {
> Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SecurityManagerTest.class);
>
> System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
> "./src/test/resources/java.policy");
> logger.debug("Policy location: {}",
> System.getProperty("java.security.policy"));
> if (System.getSecurityManager() == null) {
> System.setSecurityManager(new RMISecurityManager());
> }
> System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
> "./src/test/resources/java.policy");
> }
>
> // @Test
> // public void securityManagerWithoutLogs() {
> // System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
> "./src/test/resources/java.policy");
> // if (System.getSecurityManager() == null) {
> // System.setSecurityManager(new RMISecurityManager());
> // }
> // System.setProperty("java.security.policy",
> "./src/test/resources/java.policy");
> // }
> }
>
> 3) java.policy that you put into src/test.resources:
>
> grant {
> permission java.security.AllPermission;
> };
>
> So.... if you run this:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> T E S T S
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Running be.test.fun.SecurityManagerTest
> 2011-11-05 13:36:33,828 [main] DEBUG - (be.test.fun.SecurityManagerTest)
> - Policy location: ./src/test/resources/java.policy
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.201 sec
>
> Results :
>
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> Now, comment the 2 LOG4J-related dependencies inside the POM, and
> uncomment the logback ones:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> T E S T S
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Running be.test.fun.SecurityManagerTest
> 13:38:04.222 [main] DEBUG be.test.fun.SecurityManagerTest - Policy
> location: ./src/test/resources/java.policy
> java.security.AccessControlException: access denied
> (java.lang.RuntimePermission setContextClassLoader)
> at
> java.security.AccessControlContext.checkPermission(AccessControlContext.java:323)
>
> at
> java.security.AccessController.checkPermission(AccessController.java:546)
> at java.lang.SecurityManager.checkPermission(SecurityManager.java:532)
> at java.lang.Thread.setContextClassLoader(Thread.java:1394)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.runSuitesInProcess(SurefireBooter.java:366)
>
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireBooter.main(SurefireBooter.java:1021)
>
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] BUILD FAILURE
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] Total time: 2.202s
>
> And now comment the "securityManagerWithLogs" test method, and uncomment
> the "securityManagerWithoutLogs" one:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> T E S T S
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Running be.test.fun.SecurityManagerTest
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.105 sec
>
> Results :
>
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> Do you have the same output?
>
> FYI:
>
> [xvepak at localhost test]$ mvn -version
> Apache Maven 3.0.1 (r1038046; 2010-11-23 11:58:32+0100)
> Java version: 1.6.0_23
> Java home: /home/xvepak/software/jdk1.6.0_23/jre
> Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: UTF-8
> OS name: "linux" version: "2.6.18-238.12.1.el5" arch: "i386" Family:
> "unix"
>
> Thank you for trying to help out!!
>
> Best regards
>
> Andrew Bourgeois
>
> -----Original Message----- From: ceki
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 1:03 AM
> To: logback users list
> Subject: Re: [logback-user] SecurityManager issue using logback
>
> On 05/11/2011 12:47 PM, Andrew Bourgeois wrote:
>
>> So to reformulate:
>> The exception IS thrown when we have SLF4J code
>> The exception ISN'T thrown when we remove the SLF4J.
>
> That's not what I observe. An exception is thrown in both cases.
_______________________________________________
Logback-user mailing list
Logback-user at qos.ch
http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
More information about the Logback-user
mailing list