Re: [aspectj-users] Additional Information Passing

["Wes Isberg" <wes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> there are no common criteria which parameters to exclude. 

It sounds to me like case-by-case pointcuts:

----------
before() : execution(void X+.working(A, B, C)) {
  log(thisJoinPoint, {parmSelector});
}

before() : call(void Y+.idling(B, C)) {
  log(thisJoinPoint, {parmSelector});
}
...
----------
Depending on whether your types or names are stable and significant,
you can build {parmSelector} logic around those; otherwise, this 
approach might be hard to maintain under refactoring.

If information of a given type is always security-sensitive, you
could tag those types:

  declare parents : UserName implements ISecure; 

Then exclude ISecure instances when logging, and perhaps flag any 
field or call reference thereto:

  declare error : (set(ISecure+ *) || get(ISecure+ *)) && within(IAspect+)
    : "aspect writing or reading secure fields".

  declare error : call(* ISecure+(..)) && within(IAspect+)
    : "aspect calling secure methods".

Without common criteria, it's all encoding!

I suspect it would be useful in any case to document and 
identify the security-sensitive parameters; perhaps 
annotations would help.

Wes

> ------------Original Message------------
> From: Simon Heinzle <simon.heinzle@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, May-4-2005 4:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [aspectj-users] Additional Information Passing
>
> Mathew,
> 
> there are no common criteria which parameters to exclude. For example 
> parameters that should not be logged are username/password, account 
> information, keys, ...
> 
> Passing additional information would solve the problem by passing a 
> exclusion bit mask: (bit i) == 1 --> do not trace parameter i, ...
> 
> For example:
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 
> // pointcut, passing information via exclusionMask
> pointcut TracePC(int exclusionMask) :
>      (execution (* *..SomeClass.someMethod(..)) && exclusionMask(5))
>      (execution (* *..OtherClass.method(..))    && exclusionMask(0))
>      || ...
> 
> // corresponding advice
> before(int exclusionMask) : TracePC(exclusionMask) {
>      // get this pointer
>      Object calleeThis = thisJoinPoint.getThis();
> 
>      // get signature
>      CodeSignature methodSignature =
>          (CodeSignature) thisJoinPoint.getSignature();
>      String methodName = methodSignature.getName();
> 
>      // get parameter names & parameters
>      Object[] paramNames = methodSignature.getParameterNames();
>      Object[] paramObjects = thisJoinPoint.getArgs();
>      Object[][] methodParams = new Object[paramNames.length][2];
> 
>      // copy and mask out parameters
>      for (int i=0; i<paramNames.length; i++) {
>          methodParams[i][0] = paramNames[i];
>          if ((excludeMask & 1) == 0) {
>              methodParams[i][1] = paramObjects[i];
>          }
>          else {
>              methodParams[i][1] = "* masked *";
>          }
>          excludeMask = excludeMask >> 1;
>      }
> 
>      log.entering(calleeThis, methodName, methodParams);
> }
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 
> Regards,
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Webster wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Simon,
> > 
> > What are your criteria for excluding a piece of information from the 
> trace?
> > How do you wish to exclude it (not trace the method at all or just 
> the
> > object)? How does passing additional information (what do you have in 
> mind)
> > help with this problem?
> > 
> > Matthew Webster
> > AOSD Project
> > Java Technology Centre, MP146
> > IBM Hursley Park, Winchester,  SO21 2JN, England
> > Telephone: +44 196 2816139 (external) 246139 (internal)
> > Email: Matthew Webster/UK/IBM @ IBMGB, matthew_webster@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://w3.hursley.ibm.com/~websterm/
> > 
> > Simon Heinzle <simon.heinzle@xxxxxxxxxx>@eclipse.org on 03/05/2005 
> 16:31:20
> > 
> > Please respond to aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > Sent by:    aspectj-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > 
> > To:    AspectJ <aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > cc:
> > Subject:    [aspectj-users] Additional Information Passing
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Is there really no way to pass additional information to a pointcut
> > other than Joinpoints, Parameter Arguments, ... ?
> > 
> > We're currently working on a Logging-Aspect, but we must be able to 
> mask
> > out security sensitive parameters. One pointcut + advice for each
> > "masking configuration" (Parameter 1 logged, Param 2 not, ..) is a
> > solution, but not a very readable and extensible one (and of course, 
> 6
> > parameter-methods could possibly infer 64 such pointcuts).
> > 
> > Any suggestions how to solve this problem?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-users mailing list
> > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-users mailing list
> > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> 
> 
> -- 
>   AdNovum Informatik AG
>   Simon Heinzle
>   Praktikant
> 
>   Roentgenstrasse 22, CH-8005 Zuerich
>   mailto:simon.heinzle@xxxxxxxxxx
>   phone: +41 44 272 6111, fax: +41 44 272 6312
>   http://www.adnovum.ch
> 
>   AdNovum Offices: Bern, Budapest, San Mateo, Zuerich (HQ)
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>