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: ASSIGNED
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: 2023-08-11 17:31 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-08-20 13:59:56 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

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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.