8290368: Introduce LDAP and RMI protocol-specific object factory filters to JNDI implementation by Pooja-DP · Pull Request #3111 · openjdk/jdk11u-dev

Pooja-DP · 2025-11-03T12:33:40Z

This pull request contains a backport of commit openjdk/jdk17u@39a6bf2 from the https://github.com/openjdk/jdk17u

Bug Ref: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8290368

Signed-off-by: Pooja.D.P1 Pooja.D.P1@ibm.com

Progress

Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue
JDK-8290368 needs maintainer approval
Change requires CSR request JDK-8360532 to be approved

Error

⚠️ Pull request body is missing required line: - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).

Issues

JDK-8290368: Introduce LDAP and RMI protocol-specific object factory filters to JNDI implementation (Bug - P3)
JDK-8360532: Introduce LDAP and RMI protocol-specific object factory filters to JNDI implementation (CSR)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git pull/3111/head:pull/3111
$ git checkout pull/3111

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/3111
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git pull/3111/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 3111

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 3111

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev/pull/3111.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

bridgekeeper · 2025-11-03T12:34:46Z

👋 Welcome back Pooja-DP! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2025-11-03T12:34:52Z

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

openjdk · 2025-11-03T12:35:05Z

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

mlbridge · 2025-11-03T12:39:44Z

Webrevs

Pooja-DP · 2025-11-06T06:37:04Z

Hi team, Can anyone please take a look on my PR?

Pooja-DP · 2025-11-06T07:48:53Z

@RealCLanger - Could you please review my PR?

RealCLanger · 2025-11-06T10:04:08Z

@RealCLanger - Could you please review my PR?

Sorry, not working on JDK11 any more, you need to find somebody else.

Pooja-DP · 2025-11-07T10:54:37Z

@phohensee - Could you please take a look on my PR?

Pooja-DP · 2025-11-20T14:21:38Z

@phohensee - Could you please take a look on my PR?

gnu-andrew

It seems that when 8244473 was backported to 11u, documentation changes were not included so I think it is correct to include them here, along with fixing the ordering in java.security caused by patches being applied in a different order as far as I can see.

There are still some conflict hunks present in src/java.naming/share/classes/module-info.java and a couple of bits from 8244473 still missing:

--- src/java.naming/share/classes/module-info.java      2025-12-03 09:33:23.798486609 +0000
+++ ../jdk/src/java.naming/share/classes/module-info.java       2025-12-03 01:34:51.274570322 +0000
@@ -29,11 +29,11 @@
  * Common standard JNDI environment properties that may be supported
  * by JNDI providers are defined and documented in
  * {@link javax.naming.Context}. Specific JNDI provider implementations
- * may also support other environment properties, which are specific
+ * may also support other environment or system properties, which are specific
  * to their implementation.
  *
  * @implNote
- * The following implementation specific properties are supported by the
+ * The following implementation specific environment properties are supported by the
  * default LDAP Naming Service Provider implementation in the JDK:
  * <ul>
  *     <li>{@code java.naming.ldap.factory.socket}:
@@ -86,8 +86,6 @@
  *         channel binding information to the server.
  *     </li>
  * </ul>
-<<<<<<< HEAD
-=======
  * <p>The following implementation specific system properties are supported by the
  * default LDAP Naming Service Provider implementation in the JDK:
  * <ul>

If you can fix this up, this should be ready to go.

What testing has been done with this change?

gnu-andrew · 2025-12-03T09:44:02Z

Also please go to https://github.com/Pooja-DP/jdk11u-dev/actions and enable GitHub Actions as you are not running the testing on this pull request.

bridgekeeper · 2025-12-31T22:41:22Z

@Pooja-DP This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply issue a /touch or /keepalive command to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

Pooja-DP · 2026-01-08T12:57:34Z

/keepalive

openjdk · 2026-01-08T12:59:13Z

@Pooja-DP The pull request is being re-evaluated and the inactivity timeout has been reset.

Signed-off-by: Pooja.D.P <Pooja.D.P1@ibm.com>

openjdk · 2026-01-09T07:52:59Z

@Pooja-DP Please do not rebase or force-push to an active PR as it invalidates existing review comments. Note for future reference, the bots always squash all changes into a single commit automatically as part of the integration. See OpenJDK Developers’ Guide for more information.

Pooja-DP · 2026-01-09T07:55:51Z

@gnu-andrew : Thanks for reviewing my PR. I have addressed your comments and enabled git action as well https://github.com/Pooja-DP/jdk11u-dev/actions/runs/20845054449 Please take a look. Thanks

bridgekeeper · 2026-02-06T12:22:28Z

@Pooja-DP This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply issue a /touch or /keepalive command to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

bridgekeeper · 2026-03-06T14:01:43Z

@Pooja-DP This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will now be automatically closed. If you would like to continue working on this pull request in the future, feel free to reopen it! This can be done using the /open pull request command.

Pooja-DP · 2026-03-17T07:51:43Z

/open

openjdk · 2026-03-17T07:52:01Z

@Pooja-DP This pull request is now open

openjdk · 2026-03-17T07:52:43Z

@Pooja-DP this pull request can not be integrated into master due to one or more merge conflicts. To resolve these merge conflicts and update this pull request you can run the following commands in the local repository for your personal fork:

git checkout LDAP-RMI
git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk11u-dev.git master
git merge FETCH_HEAD
# resolve conflicts and follow the instructions given by git merge
git commit -m "Merge master"
git push

bridgekeeper · 2026-04-14T09:39:53Z

@Pooja-DP This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply issue a /touch or /keepalive command to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

Pooja-DP · 2026-04-14T11:41:05Z

/touch

openjdk · 2026-04-14T11:41:47Z

@Pooja-DP The pull request is being re-evaluated and the inactivity timeout has been reset.

openjdk bot changed the title ~~Backport 39a6bf2158c2f35399c6739e4b9578f13ea6b7e4~~ 8290368: Introduce LDAP and RMI protocol-specific object factory filters to JNDI implementation Nov 3, 2025

openjdk bot added backport Port of a pull request already in a different code base rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Nov 3, 2025

gnu-andrew suggested changes Dec 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

Backport 39a6bf2

cab8242

Signed-off-by: Pooja.D.P <Pooja.D.P1@ibm.com>

Pooja-DP force-pushed the LDAP-RMI branch from a4cbd7b to cab8242 Compare January 9, 2026 07:51

bridgekeeper bot closed this Mar 6, 2026

openjdk bot reopened this Mar 17, 2026

openjdk bot added the merge-conflict Pull request has merge conflict with target branch label Mar 17, 2026

openjdk bot removed the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Apr 14, 2026

Conversation

Pooja-DP commented Nov 3, 2025 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Error

Issues

Reviewing

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Nov 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

Pooja-DP commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

Pooja-DP commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

RealCLanger commented Nov 6, 2025

Uh oh!

Pooja-DP commented Nov 7, 2025

Uh oh!

Pooja-DP commented Nov 20, 2025

Uh oh!

gnu-andrew left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gnu-andrew commented Dec 3, 2025

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 31, 2025

Uh oh!

Pooja-DP commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Pooja-DP commented Jan 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Mar 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Pooja-DP commented Mar 17, 2026

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Mar 17, 2026

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Mar 17, 2026

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Apr 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Pooja-DP commented Apr 14, 2026

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Apr 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Pooja-DP commented Nov 3, 2025 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Nov 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Pooja-DP commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading