On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 19:48:19 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Hmm, thinking more about "internal"/"opaque", given this is naming for the
>> parent, maybe "internal" is more correct. The non-sensitive keys are
>> encapsulated by the children classes and is still an instance of the parent.
>> If you
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 19:48:19 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Hmm, thinking more about "internal"/"opaque", given this is naming for the
>> parent, maybe "internal" is more correct. The non-sensitive keys are
>> encapsulated by the children classes and is still an instance of the parent.
>> If you
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 19:50:33 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Martin Balao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> P11Key static inner classes refactorings.
>
> Hmm, thinking more about "internal"/"opaque", given this is naming for
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 19:50:33 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Martin Balao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> P11Key static inner classes refactorings.
>
> Hmm, thinking more about "internal"/"opaque", given this is naming for
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:11:45 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> As described in JDK-8271566 [1], this patch proposal is intended to fix a
>> problem that arises when using DSA keys that have a 256-bits (or larger) G
>> parameter for signatures (either signing or verifying). There were some
>>
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 19:27:30 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>
>
> Hi @valeriepeng ,
>
> Some comments and questions regarding Webrev.01:
>
> * P11Key.java
>
> * Would you consider replacing the 'Internal' suffix with 'Opaque'? I
> believe the term 'opaque' better reflects what these keys
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:37:38 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>>> > ```
>>> > * By eliminating P11RSAPrivateKey::getModulus, looks to me that
>>> > P11PrivateKeyRSA::getModulus and P11PrivateKeyRSA::fetchValues are now
>>> > called, leading to an unnecessary call to the native library as the
>>> >
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 21:25:33 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>
>
> > > ```
> > > * By eliminating P11RSAPrivateKey::getModulus, looks to me that
> > > P11PrivateKeyRSA::getModulus and P11PrivateKeyRSA::fetchValues are now
> > > called, leading to an unnecessary call to the native library as the
>
On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 22:44:16 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
> > ```
> > * By eliminating P11RSAPrivateKey::getModulus, looks to me that
> > P11PrivateKeyRSA::getModulus and P11PrivateKeyRSA::fetchValues are now
> > called, leading to an unnecessary call to the native library as the modulus
> > was
On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 22:44:16 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Martin Balao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> P11Key static inner classes refactorings.
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Please find my comments in line below.
>
>> *
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:11:45 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> As described in JDK-8271566 [1], this patch proposal is intended to fix a
>> problem that arises when using DSA keys that have a 256-bits (or larger) G
>> parameter for signatures (either signing or verifying). There were some
>>
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:11:45 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> As described in JDK-8271566 [1], this patch proposal is intended to fix a
>> problem that arises when using DSA keys that have a 256-bits (or larger) G
>> parameter for signatures (either signing or verifying). There were some
>>
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:11:45 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> As described in JDK-8271566 [1], this patch proposal is intended to fix a
>> problem that arises when using DSA keys that have a 256-bits (or larger) G
>> parameter for signatures (either signing or verifying). There were some
>>
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:11:45 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> As described in JDK-8271566 [1], this patch proposal is intended to fix a
>> problem that arises when using DSA keys that have a 256-bits (or larger) G
>> parameter for signatures (either signing or verifying). There were some
>>
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:11:45 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> As described in JDK-8271566 [1], this patch proposal is intended to fix a
>> problem that arises when using DSA keys that have a 256-bits (or larger) G
>> parameter for signatures (either signing or verifying). There were some
>>
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 17:11:45 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> As described in JDK-8271566 [1], this patch proposal is intended to fix a
>> problem that arises when using DSA keys that have a 256-bits (or larger) G
>> parameter for signatures (either signing or verifying). There were some
>>
> As described in JDK-8271566 [1], this patch proposal is intended to fix a
> problem that arises when using DSA keys that have a 256-bits (or larger) G
> parameter for signatures (either signing or verifying). There were some
> incorrect assumptions and hard-coded length values in the code
17 matches
Mail list logo
