RFR: 8312383: Improve SSL debug log

2024-02-06 Thread Prajwal Kumaraswamy
During the time of server certificate validation, users have the flexibility to use a custom X509 Key Manager implementation by extending "X509ExtendedKeyManager.". In such cases, printing the class name in X509Authentication.java will be helpful to trace any failure of the SSL connection due

Re: RFR: 8325304: Several classes in java.util.jar and java.util.zip don't specify the behaviour for null arguments [v5]

2024-02-06 Thread Jaikiran Pai
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 01:52:06 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: >> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc >> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their >> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of >>

Re: RFR: 8325304: Several classes in java.util.jar and java.util.zip don't specify the behaviour for null arguments [v5]

2024-02-06 Thread Jaikiran Pai
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc > of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their > behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of > those classes? > > For these updated classes, I have

Re: RFR: 8325304: Several classes in java.util.jar and java.util.zip don't specify the behaviour for null arguments [v4]

2024-02-06 Thread Jaikiran Pai
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc > of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their > behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of > those classes? > > For these updated classes, I have

Integrated: 8325254: CKA_TOKEN private and secret keys are not necessarily sensitive

2024-02-06 Thread Martin Balao
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:23:30 GMT, Martin Balao wrote: > Hi, > > May I have a review for this fix to > [JDK-8325254](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325254)? > > With this change, CKA_TOKEN = true is used as an indicator of a sensitive > private key (opaque) only if the token is NSS. The

Re: RFR: 8325254: CKA_TOKEN private and secret keys are not necessarily sensitive

2024-02-06 Thread Martin Balao
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 18:32:58 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote: >> Hi, >> >> May I have a review for this fix to >> [JDK-8325254](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325254)? >> >> With this change, CKA_TOKEN = true is used as an indicator of a sensitive >> private key (opaque) only if the token is

Re: RFR: 8324648: Avoid NoSuchMethodError when instantiating NativePRNG [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Valerie Peng
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 13:54:10 GMT, Oli Gillespie wrote: >> A typical call to `new SecureRandom()` is slowed down by looking for a >> constructor in NativePRNG which takes >> `java.security.SecureRandomParameters`. NativePRNG does not have such a >> constructor, so the search fails >>

Re: RFR: 8325254: CKA_TOKEN private and secret keys are not necessarily sensitive

2024-02-06 Thread Valerie Peng
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:23:30 GMT, Martin Balao wrote: > Hi, > > May I have a review for this fix to > [JDK-8325254](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325254)? > > With this change, CKA_TOKEN = true is used as an indicator of a sensitive > private key (opaque) only if the token is NSS. The

Re: RFR: 8324648: Avoid NoSuchMethodError when instantiating NativePRNG [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Chen Liang
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 13:54:10 GMT, Oli Gillespie wrote: >> A typical call to `new SecureRandom()` is slowed down by looking for a >> constructor in NativePRNG which takes >> `java.security.SecureRandomParameters`. NativePRNG does not have such a >> constructor, so the search fails >>

Re: RFR: 8325254: CKA_TOKEN private and secret keys are not necessarily sensitive

2024-02-06 Thread Martin Balao
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:09:26 GMT, Mark Powers wrote: >> Hi, >> >> May I have a review for this fix to >> [JDK-8325254](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325254)? >> >> With this change, CKA_TOKEN = true is used as an indicator of a sensitive >> private key (opaque) only if the token is

Re: RFR: JDK-8325189: Enable this-escape javac warning in java.base

2024-02-06 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:29:25 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/net/www/MessageHeader.java line 53: >> >>> 51: } >>> 52: >>> 53: @SuppressWarnings("this-escape") >> >> An alternative here could be to make the class final. AFAICS it's not >> subclassed anywhere.

Re: RFR: JDK-8325189: Enable this-escape javac warning in java.base

2024-02-06 Thread Lance Andersen
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:36:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the > base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled. > This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with > the

Re: RFR: JDK-8325189: Enable this-escape javac warning in java.base

2024-02-06 Thread Joe Wang
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:36:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the > base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled. > This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with > the

Re: RFR: JDK-8325189: Enable this-escape javac warning in java.base

2024-02-06 Thread Joe Darcy
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:36:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the > base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled. > This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with > the

Re: RFR: JDK-8325189: Enable this-escape javac warning in java.base

2024-02-06 Thread Joe Darcy
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:35:52 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the >> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled. >> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with >>

Re: RFR: 8325254: CKA_TOKEN private and secret keys are not necessarily sensitive

2024-02-06 Thread Mark Powers
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:23:30 GMT, Martin Balao wrote: > Hi, > > May I have a review for this fix to > [JDK-8325254](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325254)? > > With this change, CKA_TOKEN = true is used as an indicator of a sensitive > private key (opaque) only if the token is NSS. The

Re: RFR: JDK-8325189: Enable this-escape javac warning in java.base

2024-02-06 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:36:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the > base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled. > This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with > the

Re: RFR: 8324648: Avoid NoSuchMethodError when instantiating NativePRNG [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Oli Gillespie
> A typical call to `new SecureRandom()` is slowed down by looking for a > constructor in NativePRNG which takes `java.security.SecureRandomParameters`. > NativePRNG does not have such a constructor, so the search fails >

Re: RFR: 8324646: Avoid Class.forName in SecureRandom constructor [v4]

2024-02-06 Thread Oli Gillespie
> Avoid expensive `Class.forName` call when constructing Providers such as > `SecureRandom` which take constructor parameters. This can easily be cached > in EngineDescription (this cache already existed before, it was removed in > [JDK-8280970](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8280970) as

Re: RFR: 8324648: Avoid NoSuchMethodError when instantiating NativePRNG [v2]

2024-02-06 Thread Weijun Wang
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:41:55 GMT, Oli Gillespie wrote: >> A typical call to `new SecureRandom()` is slowed down by looking for a >> constructor in NativePRNG which takes >> `java.security.SecureRandomParameters`. NativePRNG does not have such a >> constructor, so the search fails >>

Re: RFR: 8324646: Avoid Class.forName in SecureRandom constructor [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Oli Gillespie
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:39:27 GMT, Oli Gillespie wrote: >> Avoid expensive `Class.forName` call when constructing Providers such as >> `SecureRandom` which take constructor parameters. This can easily be cached >> in EngineDescription (this cache already existed before, it was removed in >>

Re: RFR: 8324646: Avoid Class.forName in SecureRandom constructor [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Weijun Wang
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:39:27 GMT, Oli Gillespie wrote: >> Avoid expensive `Class.forName` call when constructing Providers such as >> `SecureRandom` which take constructor parameters. This can easily be cached >> in EngineDescription (this cache already existed before, it was removed in >>

Re: RFR: 8325304: Several classes in java.util.jar and java.util.zip don't specify the behaviour for null arguments [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Alan Bateman
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 12:30:10 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: >> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc >> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their >> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of >>

Re: RFR: 8325304: Several classes in java.util.jar and java.util.zip don't specify the behaviour for null arguments [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Jaikiran Pai
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 12:30:10 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: >> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc >> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their >> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of >>

Re: RFR: 8325304: Several classes in java.util.jar and java.util.zip don't specify the behaviour for null arguments [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Jaikiran Pai
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc > of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their > behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of > those classes? > > For these updated classes, I have

Re: RFR: JDK-8325189: Enable this-escape javac warning in java.base

2024-02-06 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:36:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the > base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled. > This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with > the

Re: RFR: 8324646: Avoid Class.forName in SecureRandom constructor [v3]

2024-02-06 Thread Aleksey Shipilev
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:39:27 GMT, Oli Gillespie wrote: >> Avoid expensive `Class.forName` call when constructing Providers such as >> `SecureRandom` which take constructor parameters. This can easily be cached >> in EngineDescription (this cache already existed before, it was removed in >>

Re: RFR: 8325109: Sort method modifiers in canonical order

2024-02-06 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:57:04 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > This is a follow-up on > [JDK-8324053](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8324053). I have run the > bin/blessed-modifier-order.sh on the entire code base, and manually checked > the result. I have reverted all but these trivial

Re: RFR: 8325304: Several classes in java.util.jar and java.util.zip don't specify the behaviour for null arguments [v2]

2024-02-06 Thread Lance Andersen
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:31:06 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: >> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc >> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their >> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of >>

Re: RFR: 8324648: Avoid NoSuchMethodError when instantiating NativePRNG

2024-02-06 Thread Oli Gillespie
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:42:05 GMT, Oli Gillespie wrote: > A typical call to `new SecureRandom()` is slowed down by looking for a > constructor in NativePRNG which takes `java.security.SecureRandomParameters`. > NativePRNG does not have such a constructor, so the search fails >

Re: RFR: 8324648: Avoid NoSuchMethodError when instantiating NativePRNG [v2]

2024-02-06 Thread Oli Gillespie
> A typical call to `new SecureRandom()` is slowed down by looking for a > constructor in NativePRNG which takes `java.security.SecureRandomParameters`. > NativePRNG does not have such a constructor, so the search fails >

Re: RFR: 8325304: Several classes in java.util.jar and java.util.zip don't specify the behaviour for null arguments [v2]

2024-02-06 Thread Jaikiran Pai
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc > of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their > behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of > those classes? > > For these updated classes, I have

Re: RFR: 8325304: Several classes in java.util.jar and java.util.zip don't specify the behaviour for null arguments

2024-02-06 Thread Jaikiran Pai
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:05:52 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: > Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc > of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their > behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of > those

RFR: 8325304: Several classes in java.util.jar and java.util.zip don't specify the behaviour for null arguments

2024-02-06 Thread Jaikiran Pai
Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of those classes? For these updated classes, I have individually