我有一个使用Spring Security的Spring MVC web应用程序。我想知道当前登录用户的用户名。我正在使用下面给出的代码片段。这是公认的方式吗?
我不喜欢在这个控制器中调用静态方法——恕我直言，这违背了Spring的全部目的。有没有一种方法来配置应用程序有当前的SecurityContext，或当前的认证，注入代替?
@RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET)
public ModelAndView showResults(final HttpServletRequest request...) {
final String currentUser = SecurityContextHolder.getContext().getAuthentication().getName();
...
}
当前回答
对于我写的上一个Spring MVC应用程序，我没有注入SecurityContext holder，但我确实有一个基本控制器，我有两个实用程序方法与此相关…isAuthenticated() & getUsername()。在内部，它们执行您所描述的静态方法调用。
至少在以后需要重构时，它只在一个地方。
其他回答
对于我写的上一个Spring MVC应用程序，我没有注入SecurityContext holder，但我确实有一个基本控制器，我有两个实用程序方法与此相关…isAuthenticated() & getUsername()。在内部，它们执行您所描述的静态方法调用。
至少在以后需要重构时，它只在一个地方。
我会这样做:
request.getRemoteUser();
如果您正在使用Spring 3，并且需要在控制器中使用经过身份验证的主体，那么最好的解决方案是这样做:
import org.springframework.security.authentication.UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken;
import org.springframework.security.core.userdetails.User;
import org.springframework.stereotype.Controller;
import org.springframework.ui.Model;
@Controller
public class KnoteController {
@RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET)
public java.lang.String list(Model uiModel, UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken authToken) {
if (authToken instanceof UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken) {
user = (User) authToken.getPrincipal();
}
...
}
如果您正在使用Spring Security ver >= 3.2，您可以使用@AuthenticationPrincipal注释:
@RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET)
public ModelAndView showResults(@AuthenticationPrincipal CustomUser currentUser, HttpServletRequest request) {
String currentUsername = currentUser.getUsername();
// ...
}
这里，CustomUser是一个自定义对象，它实现了由自定义UserDetailsService返回的UserDetails。
更多信息可以在Spring Security参考文档的@AuthenticationPrincipal一章中找到。
Yes, statics are generally bad - generally, but in this case, the static is the most secure code you can write. Since the security context associates a Principal with the currently running thread, the most secure code would access the static from the thread as directly as possible. Hiding the access behind a wrapper class that is injected provides an attacker with more points to attack. They wouldn't need access to the code (which they would have a hard time changing if the jar was signed), they just need a way to override the configuration, which can be done at runtime or slipping some XML onto the classpath. Even using annotation injection in the signed code would be overridable with external XML. Such XML could inject the running system with a rogue principal. This is probably why Spring is doing something so un-Spring-like in this case.
