[jira] [Commented] (DERBY-6521) Improve error handling when restricting file permissions

["Mamta A. Satoor (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6521?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14126097#comment-14126097 ] 

Mamta A. Satoor commented on DERBY-6521:
----------------------------------------

Knut, had a question on this jira. Should have asked this earlier. With the fix, in the case were the user has not explicitly requested restriction of file permissions, will we be raising exception(this would be change in behavior from previous release) or would we just print a warning in derby.log. If we are going to raise an exception, I am wondering if we need to document that in release notes as change in behavior. Sorry if this has already taken care of.

Also, thought would mention that RestrictiveFilePermissionsTest gets run only with jdk 1.7 and higher. Do we need to have an additional test for jdk 1.6 and higher to test the behavior in case of missing file permissions? Thanks

> Improve error handling when restricting file permissions
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-6521
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6521
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Services
>    Affects Versions: 10.11.1.1
>            Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
>            Assignee: Knut Anders Hatlen
>             Fix For: 10.11.1.1
>
>         Attachments: d6521-1a.diff, d6521-1b.diff
>
>
> In DERBY-6503 there was some discussion about changing how errors are handled when Derby fails to restrict the file permissions.
> There seemed to be consensus that Derby should raise an exception if the user had explicitly requested (by setting derby.storage.useDefaultFilePermissions=false) that it should try to restrict file permissions. Currently, it only raises an error on non-posix file systems that support access control lists.
> In the case were the user has not explicitly requested restriction of file permissions, two options have been suggested:
> 1) Raise an exception
> 2) Don't raise an exception, possibly print a warning in derby.log
> Option 1 is the more secure one, since it forces the user to make a decision on how to handle a possible security problem (either by addressing the underlying cause of the failure, so that permissions can be successfully restricted by Derby, or by disabling the file restriction functionality).
> Option 2 is the more backward compatible one, since it gracefully falls back to the pre-10.10/pre-Java 7 behaviour if it cannot restrict the file permissions.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)