Skip to content

Document security policy grant required for non-Semeru JDKs - #1728

Open
taoliult wants to merge 1 commit into
IBM:mainfrom
taoliult:main_Readme
Open

Document security policy grant required for non-Semeru JDKs#1728
taoliult wants to merge 1 commit into
IBM:mainfrom
taoliult:main_Readme

Conversation

@taoliult

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Users on JDKs other than IBM Semeru must manually add the openjceplus grant block to their JDK policy file. Add a new README section with the full grant, setup steps, and a note on the file: codeBase alternative for JAR-based installations.

Comment thread README.md Outdated
Comment thread README.md Outdated
Comment thread README.md Outdated
@taoliult
taoliult force-pushed the main_Readme branch 3 times, most recently from 08c0d7f to a4e5c57 Compare August 21, 2026 19:09
@taoliult
taoliult requested a review from jasonkatonica August 21, 2026 19:11

@jasonkatonica jasonkatonica left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Comment thread README.md Outdated

**NOTE**: This section applies only when the JVM Security Manager is enabled. The Security Manager was deprecated in Java 17 and removed in Java 24.

When running on a JDK that does **not** bundle `OpenJCEPlus` (i.e., any JDK other than IBM Semeru), the JVM security manager requires an explicit policy grant so that the `openjceplus` module can perform the operations it needs. Without this grant, you may encounter `AccessControlException` errors at runtime.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wouldn't refer to it as a module since it's not one in every JDK other than Semeru.

@taoliult taoliult Sep 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we should avoid using the term "module" here, would it be better to replace it with "provider" or "code"? Like "openjceplus provider" or "openjceplus code", or any other suggestions?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Given that your are talking about "operations it needs", I think code is more appropriate. @jasonkatonica what do you think?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

openjceplus code sounds good to me also given this is not always a module ( unless you count this code running on the unnamed module as a module )

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or just openjceplus, without code or module, like "so that the openjceplus can perform the operations it needs." @jasonkatonica @KostasTsiounis

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think it reads as well that way.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated. Just use openjceplus, without referring to it as a module or code.

@JinhangZhang JinhangZhang left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Users on JDKs other than IBM Semeru must manually add the
openjceplus grant block to their JDK policy file. Add a new
README section with the full grant, setup steps, and a note
on the file: codeBase alternative for JAR-based installations.

Signed-off-by: Tao Liu <tao.liu@ibm.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants