Bug 1883312

Summary:	java.txt file contains both security properties and system properties
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	Reporter:	Andrew John Hughes <ahughes>
Component:	crypto-policies	Assignee:	Alexander Sosedkin <asosedki>
Status:	ASSIGNED ---	QA Contact:	BaseOS QE Security Team <qe-baseos-security>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	8.3	CC:	mmillson, ssorce, szidek
Target Milestone:	rc	Keywords:	Reopened, Triaged
Target Release:	8.5
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-08-20 13:59:56 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1882178
Bug Blocks:	1882168, 1882185

Description Andrew John Hughes 2020-09-28 18:08:37 UTC

See bug 1882168 & bug 1882185.

Java supports two types of properties; system properties (set at the command line by -Dx=y) [0] and security properties (set in lib/security/java.security) [1].

The current Java support for the crypto policies assumes that the contents of java.txt are security properties.

However, one - jdk.tls.ephemeralDHKeySize - is actually a system property and so needs different handling. It also has an invalid value of 1023 for the legacy policy.

We can provide support for setting system properties from the crypto policy in OpenJDK, but we first need these properties to ideally be stored in a separate file, or otherwise clearly denoted if they must share a single file.

I presume we need this fix in Fedora as well as RHEL 8 for consistency.

Comment 1 Andrew John Hughes 2020-09-28 18:13:03 UTC

Seems 1882178 already covers the 1023 issue.

Comment 2 Tomas Mraz 2020-09-29 06:14:09 UTC

What would ideally be the format of the system properties configuration file?

Comment 4 Andrew John Hughes 2020-10-08 01:48:35 UTC

(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #2)
> What would ideally be the format of the system properties configuration file?

The current format is fine. What we need is two files instead of one, so they can act as input to different parts of the JDK.

That's the most efficient way of handling this, as then the security properties code can completely ignore the system properties file (and vice versa).

Comment 9 Alexander Sosedkin 2021-08-20 13:59:56 UTC

I'd rather fix this in 9-onwards-only (bz1974274), feel free to reopen if you strongly feel otherwise.