[JENKINS-73278] Migrate core from EE 8 to EE 9

[basil]

Context

See JENKINS-73255. Goes with three other pull requests:

• [JENKINS-73256] Migrate Jelly from EE 8 to EE 9 jelly#114
• [JENKINS-73258] Migrate Stapler from EE 8 to EE 9 stapler#482
• [JENKINS-73259] Migrate Winstone from EE 8 to EE 9 winstone#396

Problem

Jenkins bundles an outdated copy of Spring Security 5.x, with official end of open source support on August 31, 2024. Spring Security 6.x requires Spring Framework 6.x, which requires EE 9.

Solution

• Update dependencies in pom.xml to align with Jetty 12 (EE 9)
• Migrate imports
• Add compatibility layer for EE 8 to support Jenkins plugins

At a high level, we add StaplerRequest2 and StaplerResponse2 classes, the Jakarta equivalents of the old versions (now deprecated). The RequestImpl and ResponseImpl implementations are now based on EE 9 rather than EE 8, but support for plugins is maintained by converting to and from the interfaces as needed.

Testing done

Full PCT and ATH (Jenkins public version and CloudBees internal version)

Proposed changelog entries

Upgrade Spring Framework from 5.3.39 to 6.1.12, upgrade Spring Security from 5.8.14 to 6.3.3, and upgrade Java EE from 8 to 9.

Proposed upgrade guidelines

Users of the LDAP plugin must upgrade it to a compatible version in lockstep with upgrading Jenkins core.

Submitter checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
2. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
5. New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
6. New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

[basil]

Excluded to avoid increasing API surface area, as this seems to be unused.

[MarkEWaite]

I've been testing versions of this for months with good results. Thanks!

[vwagh-dev]

LGTM

[Kevin-CB]

The View/doCreateItem method is now defined and should either require POST request or be made non-routable to prevent a CSRF vulnerability.

Additionally, there are several deprecated methods that no longer need to be routable, however, AFAIK they don't pose any security risk.

[basil]

Should this PR be amended to also cast to the subtype when it's instanceof, consistent with CompatibleFilter?

commit 520776a

[daniel-beck]

BasicHeaderAuthenticator and ParameterizedJobMixIn#doBuildWithParameters look like bugs.

There are a few cases of seemingly wrong override direction in overridable methods, which should be looked at. In addition to the line comments below, there are several additional occurrences in AbstractProject in which the old method calls the new method.

The rest of the findings are things that look off enough to warrant a mention, mostly just inconsistencies in the code with no obvious reason.

Otherwise this looks good. I was unable to find security issues, and no further compatibility issues other than those I posted as individual top comments.

[basil]

BasicHeaderAuthenticator and ParameterizedJobMixIn#doBuildWithParameters look like bugs.

Thanks, this is fixed in the most recent revision.

There are a few cases of seemingly wrong override direction in overridable methods, which should be looked at. In addition to the line comments below, there are several additional occurrences in AbstractProject in which the old method calls the new method.

In cases where I couldn't find any overrides or felt that overrides were unlikely, I kept things simple and had the old implementation call the new. This was a bit of a subjective choice to favor simplicity at a slight risk of incorrectness rather than polluting the code with (likely unnecessary) complexity to completely eliminate risk.

The rest of the findings are things that look off enough to warrant a mention, mostly just inconsistencies in the code with no obvious reason.

Thanks, I have fixed these oversights.

Otherwise this looks good. I was unable to find security issues, and no further compatibility issues other than those I posted as individual top comments.

Great! Thank you very much.

[basil]

@daniel-beck Can you look at this final set of changes and let me know if this is ready to ship?

[daniel-beck]