This bug has been migrated to another issue tracking site. It has been closed here and may no longer be being monitored.

If you would like to get updates for this issue, or to participate in it, you may do so at Red Hat Issue Tracker .
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1883312 - java.txt file contains both security properties and system properties
Summary: java.txt file contains both security properties and system properties
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED MIGRATED
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
Classification: Red Hat
Component: crypto-policies
Version: 8.3
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: 8.5
Assignee: Alexander Sosedkin
QA Contact: BaseOS QE Security Team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1882178
Blocks: 1882168 1882185
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-09-28 18:08 UTC by Andrew John Hughes
Modified: 2023-09-19 20:30 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-09-19 20:30:42 UTC
Type: Bug
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker CRYPTO-11469 0 None None None 2023-08-11 17:31:25 UTC
Red Hat Issue Tracker   RHEL-5206 0 None Migrated None 2023-09-19 20:27:51 UTC

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.
Comment 12 RHEL Program Management 2023-09-19 20:25:31 UTC 
Issue migration from Bugzilla to Jira is in process at this time. This will be the last message in Jira copied from the Bugzilla bug.
Comment 13 RHEL Program Management 2023-09-19 20:30:42 UTC 
This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there.

Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated.  Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information.

To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "RHEL-" followed by an integer.  You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like:

"Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567

In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.