Hi Roger
Glad to send the patch.
I also tried to write a meaningful and useful test. Please tell me
ruthlessly if it makes sense or what not.
Looking forward to progress in a bug that has been open for more than 10
years now.
Philipp
On 22.01.2018 21:03, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Philipp,
I'm tending to agree with the suggestion about line length interpretation.
To meet OpenJDK IP requirements, please attach the .patch file or
include it in the body
of the message.
Thanks, Roger
On 12/18/2017 11:17 PM, Philipp Kunz wrote:
Hi Roger,
My suggested and also preferred approach is to read the manifest
specification [1] in a way such that the line breaks are not included
when counting the maximum line length. The specification does not
state explicitly whether or not to include line breaks within the
maximum line length limit but the following sentence from the
specifications gives a hint:
Because header names cannot be continued, the maximum length of a
header name is 70 bytes (there must be a colon and a SPACE after the
name).
Above statement can be true only if line breaks are not counted for
the maximum line length limit. Assuming so would in my opinion allow
to understand the complete manifest specification without a conflict
and effectively result in wider manifest files (maximum each line),
wider by two bytes of a line break.
In the meantime since the mail you replied to, I created a patch [3]
mentioned in [2] which might be useful provided the manifest
specification discussion is resolved.
Regards,
Philipp
[1]
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/jar/jar.html#Notes_on_Manifest_and_Signature_Files
/
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/specs/jar/jar.html#Notes_on_Manifest_and_Signature_Files
[2]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-December/050500.html
[3] http://files.paratix.ch/jdk/6372077/webrev.01/
On 18.12.2017 16:46, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Phillip,
Sorry for the silence...
I/we haven't had time to full understand the ramifications of the
change you propose.
It seems there is a difficult/unresolvable conflict in the
specifications between the line length
requirements and the header specs.
Regards, Roger
On 11/21/2017 1:18 AM, Philipp Kunz wrote:
Hi everyone,
I haven't got any reply now for around three weeks and now i start
to wonder if I just missed it or if I should refine my approach to
find a sponsor or if it helped if I presented a ready patch or if
noone considers this important enough or anything else whatever.
This is only my second contribution hence I don't know the
procedure well.
One point maybe worth to point out again is that I don't want to
support manifest headers longer than 70 character, just up to 70,
which has always been the intention but has only worked up to 68.
This might have been written confusingly in my last email.
As far as I understood, I should first get a sponsor. In any case,
is there any suggestion for how to proceed?
Regards,
Philipp
On 03.11.2017 00:04, Philipp Kunz wrote:
Hi Sean and Max and all others,
Thank you Sean for the hint about the right mailing list. And
thanks also for his hint to Max to make smaller portions of changes.
I would like to contribute a fix for JDK-6372077 which is about
JarFile.getManifest() should handle manifest attribute name[s
longer than] 70 bytes.
It looks like the bug is caused by Manifest.make72Safe breaking
lines at 70 bytes instead of 72 despite its comment and name
(http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/master/file/tip/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Manifest.java#l176).The
resulting StringBuffer has then lines of 72 bytes maximum each
including the following line break. Without the line break that
leaves 70 bytes of characters per line. On the other hand, header
names can be up to 70 bytes (only single-byte utf-8 characters)
and cannot be broken across a line break and need to be followed
by a colon and a space which must be on the same line too
according to the specification. When breaking at 70 bytes
excluding the line break, however, long header names don't fit in
one line together with the colon space delimiter because there is
not sufficient space.
Manifests with names up to 70 bytes long can still be written
without immediate exception but the resulting manifests are
illegal in my opinion. When later reading such manifests
(http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/master/file/tip/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java#l406),
an error occurs as a consequence of the bad manifest. This is more
or less the current situation and also what JDK-6372077 already knew.
--> After all, in order to fix it, i'd like to propose to make
manifest file lines wider by two bytes.
The only proper alternative that came into my mind would be to
change the manifest specification and reduce the maximum header
name length there by two and also in the code. If that would break
any existing code i guess that would affect code only that
produced invalid manifests and would be acceptable.
Supporting all existing and possibly invalid manifests would mean
to add support for reading headers the delimiters of which are
broken onto the next line which I consider too complex with
respect to the value added and even more so considering that those
invalid manifest can be assumed to have been detected as such by
reading them and also because it would be a feature that would be
used less and less over time if the code to write manifest is
changed at the same time to produce only valid manifests in the
discussed respect here. I don't think this should be actually done.
Before I actually do the leg work, i'd like to ask, if there are
concerns or objections or tips for such a change or if anyone can
or cannot follow the reasoning and the conclusion to make
manifests 2 bytes wider or if i missed an important point altogether.
In case there will be a consent about how to solve this, would
someone volunteer to sponsor? That may be less urgent at the
moment than the question above about how to proceed.
Philipp
On 12.10.2017 22:32, Sean Mullan wrote:
Hi Phillip,
All of these bugs are in the core-libs area, so I am copying the
core-libs-dev list since that is where they should be discussed
and reviewed. I have -bcc-ed security-dev (where this was
originally posted).
--Sean
On 10/2/17 1:24 PM, Philipp Kunz wrote:
Hi,
While fixing JDK-6695402 I came across other related bugs to
manifests such as JDK-6372077, JDK-6202130, JDK-8176843,
JDK-4842483, and JDK-6443578 which all relate to manifest
reading and writing. Somewhere bug 7071055 is mentioned but I
cannot find anywhere. Another group of bugs, JDK-6910466,
JDK-4935610, and JDK-4271239 concern the mandatory manifest main
attributes Manifest-Version or Signature-Version and at first
glance are duplicates. If you know of more known bugs, not
necessarily present in jira, I'd be glad to get notified.
There are also some comments about utf handling and line
breaking in the code of Manifest:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/master/file/a0116bcc65b7/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java#l299
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/master/file/a0116bcc65b7/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java#l327
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/master/file/a0116bcc65b7/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java#l370
Furthermore, Attributes.map should declare appropriate type
parameters:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/master/file/a0116bcc65b7/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java#l61
The specification would also require that `header names must not
start with _, - or "From"`
(http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/jar/jar.html#Section-Specification)
but I would opt not to add this as a hard restriction because I
guess it can be assumed that such names are in use now after
having been working for years. A warning to a logger might be
conceivable such as in
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/master/file/a0116bcc65b7/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java#l424
Attribute values are never checked at all and invalid characters
such as line breaks are never detected except that when reading
the manifest again the values are cut off.
The tab character (U+0008) does not work in manifest values.
I suspect that there are also issues regarding the iteration
order but I haven't got a prove yet unlike for the other points
above:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/master/file/a0116bcc65b7/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Manifest.java#l54
There is duplicated or very similar code in Attributes and
Manifest: Attributes.write-Manifest.write-Attributes.writeMain
and Attributes.read-Manifest.read.
Resolving JDK-6202130 would have the additional benefit to be
able to view manifests with any utf-8 capable editor even if
multi-byte characters break across lines.
Fixing these issues individually looks like more complicated
work than fixing them all at once, I guess, also because of a
very low current test coverage. So I'd suggest to add some
thorough tests along with fixing these issues. But before I
start I would like to get some guidance, assistance or at least
confirmation on how to proceed. I'm new to open jdk and have
submitted only one patch so far.
Is it ok to add tests for things that have worked before?
Is it ok to refactor duplicated code just for the added value to
reduce effort for testing?
I assume compatibility to and from existing manifests is the
highest priority, correct? This would also be the hard part in
adding as complete test coverage as possible. What would be
acceptable criteria to meet?
Why does Attributes not extend LinkedHashMap and why does
Manifest not extend HashMap? Any objection?
While I would not want to write code that looks slow or change
more than necessary one can never know before having performance
actually measured. Is there some way this is dealt with or
should I wait for such feedback until after patch submission?
Would someone sponsor?
Regards,
Philipp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paratix GmbH
St Peterhofstatt 11
8001 Zürich
+41 (0)76 397 79 35
philipp.k...@paratix.ch <mailto:philipp.k...@paratix.ch>
--
Gruss Philipp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paratix GmbH
St Peterhofstatt 11
8001 Zürich
+41 (0)76 397 79 35
philipp.k...@paratix.ch <mailto:philipp.k...@paratix.ch>
--
Gruss Philipp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paratix GmbH
St Peterhofstatt 11
8001 Zürich
+41 (0)76 397 79 35
philipp.k...@paratix.ch <mailto:philipp.k...@paratix.ch>
diff -r 678e1ec433a0 src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java Fri Feb 02 02:55:00 2018 +0000
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java Fri Feb 02 19:51:05 2018 +0100
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/*
- * Copyright (c) 1997, 2015, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright (c) 1997, 2018, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
* DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
*
* This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
@@ -311,9 +311,8 @@
value = new String(vb, 0, 0, vb.length);
}
buffer.append(value);
-
+ Manifest.make72Safe(buffer);
buffer.append("\r\n");
- Manifest.make72Safe(buffer);
os.writeBytes(buffer.toString());
}
os.writeBytes("\r\n");
@@ -356,9 +355,8 @@
value = new String(vb, 0, 0, vb.length);
}
buffer.append(value);
-
+ Manifest.make72Safe(buffer);
buffer.append("\r\n");
- Manifest.make72Safe(buffer);
out.writeBytes(buffer.toString());
}
}
diff -r 678e1ec433a0 src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Manifest.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Manifest.java Fri Feb 02 02:55:00 2018 +0000
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Manifest.java Fri Feb 02 19:51:05 2018 +0100
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/*
- * Copyright (c) 1997, 2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright (c) 1997, 2018, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
* DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
*
* This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
@@ -157,8 +157,8 @@
value = new String(vb, 0, 0, vb.length);
}
buffer.append(value);
+ make72Safe(buffer);
buffer.append("\r\n");
- make72Safe(buffer);
dos.writeBytes(buffer.toString());
e.getValue().write(dos);
}
@@ -170,13 +170,11 @@
*/
static void make72Safe(StringBuffer line) {
int length = line.length();
- if (length > 72) {
- int index = 70;
- while (index < length - 2) {
- line.insert(index, "\r\n ");
- index += 72;
- length += 3;
- }
+ int index = 72;
+ while (index < length) {
+ line.insert(index, "\r\n ");
+ index += 74; // + line width + line break ("\r\n")
+ length += 3; // + line break ("\r\n") and space
}
return;
}
diff -r 678e1ec433a0 test/jdk/java/util/jar/Manifest/LineBreakLineWidth.java
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/test/jdk/java/util/jar/Manifest/LineBreakLineWidth.java Fri Feb 02 19:51:05 2018 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,284 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2018, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
+ * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
+ *
+ * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+ * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ *
+ * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
+ * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
+ * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
+ * version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that
+ * accompanied this code).
+ *
+ * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License version
+ * 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
+ * Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
+ *
+ * Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA
+ * or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any
+ * questions.
+ */
+
+import static java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets.UTF_8;
+
+import java.io.ByteArrayInputStream;
+import java.io.ByteArrayOutputStream;
+import java.io.IOException;
+import java.util.jar.Manifest;
+import java.util.jar.Attributes;
+import java.util.jar.Attributes.Name;
+
+import org.testng.annotations.Test;
+import static org.testng.Assert.*;
+
+/**
+ * @test
+ * @bug 6372077
+ * @run testng LineBreakLineWidth
+ * @summary write valid manifests with respect to line breaks
+ * and read any line width
+ */
+public class LineBreakLineWidth {
+
+ /**
+ * maximum header name length from {@link Name#isValid(String)}
+ * not including the name-value delimiter <code>": "</code>
+ */
+ final static int MAX_HEADER_NAME_LENGTH = 70;
+
+ /**
+ * range of one..{@link #TEST_WIDTH_RANGE} covered in this test that
+ * exceeds the range of allowed header name lengths or line widths
+ * in order to also cover invalid cases beyond the valid boundaries
+ * and to keep it somewhat independent from the actual manifest width.
+ * <p>
+ * bigger than 72 (maximum manifest header line with in bytes (not utf-8
+ * encoded characters) but otherwise arbitrarily chosen
+ */
+ final static int TEST_WIDTH_RANGE = 123;
+
+ /**
+ * tests if only valid manifest files can written depending on the header
+ * name length or that an exception occurs already on the attempt to write
+ * an invalid one otherwise and that no invalid manifest can be written.
+ * <p>
+ * due to bug JDK-6372077 it was possible to write a manifest that could
+ * not be read again. independent of the actual manifest line width, such
+ * a situation should never happen, which is the subject of this test.
+ */
+ @Test
+ public void testWriteValidManifestOrException() throws IOException {
+ /*
+ * multi-byte utf-8 characters cannot occur in header names,
+ * only in values which are not subject of this test here.
+ * hence, each character in a header name uses exactly one byte and
+ * variable length utf-8 character encoding doesn't affect this test.
+ */
+
+ String name = "";
+ for (int l = 1; l <= TEST_WIDTH_RANGE; l++) {
+ name += "x";
+ System.out.println("name = " + name + ", "
+ + "name.length = " + name.length());
+
+ if (l <= MAX_HEADER_NAME_LENGTH) {
+ writeValidManifest(name, "somevalue");
+ } else {
+ writeInvalidManifestThrowsException(name, "somevalue");
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ static void writeValidManifest(String name, String value)
+ throws IOException {
+ byte[] mfBytes = writeManifest(name, value);
+ Manifest mf = new Manifest(new ByteArrayInputStream(mfBytes));
+ assertMainAndSectionValues(mf, name, value);
+ }
+
+ static void writeInvalidManifestThrowsException(String name, String value)
+ throws IOException {
+ try {
+ writeManifest(name, value);
+ } catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
+ // no invalid manifest was produced which is considered acceptable
+ return;
+ }
+
+ fail("no error writing manifest considered invalid");
+ }
+
+ /**
+ * tests that manifest files can be read even if the line breaks are
+ * placed in different positions than where the current JDK's
+ * {@link Manifest#write(java.io.OutputStream)} would have put it provided
+ * the manifest is valid otherwise.
+ * <p>
+ * the <a href="{@docRoot}/../specs/jar/jar.html#Notes_on_Manifest_and_Signature_Files">
+ * "Notes on Manifest and Signature Files" in the "JAR File
+ * Specification"</a> state that "no line may be longer than 72 bytes
+ * (not characters), in its utf8-encoded form." but allows for earlier or
+ * additional line breaks.
+ * <p>
+ * the most important purpose of this test case is probably to make sure
+ * that manifest files broken at 70 bytes line width written with the
+ * previous version of {@link Manifest} before this fix still work well.
+ */
+ @Test
+ public void testReadDifferentLineWidths() throws IOException {
+ /*
+ * uses only one-byte utf-8 encoded characters as values.
+ * correctly breaking multi-byte utf-8 encoded characters
+ * would be subject of another test if there was one such.
+ */
+
+ // w: line width
+ // 6 minimum required for section names starting with "Name: "
+ for (int w = 6; w <= TEST_WIDTH_RANGE; w++) {
+
+ // ln: header name length
+ String name = "";
+ // - 2 due to the delimiter ": " that has to fit on the same
+ // line as the name
+ for (int ln = 1; ln <= w - 2; ln++) {
+ name += "x";
+
+ // lv: value length
+ String value = "";
+ for (int lv = 1; lv <= TEST_WIDTH_RANGE; lv++) {
+ value += "y";
+ }
+
+ System.out.println("lineWidth = " + w);
+ System.out.println("name = " + name + ""
+ + ", name.length = " + name.length());
+ System.out.println("value = " + value + ""
+ + ", value.length = " + value.length());
+
+ readSpecificLineWidthManifest(name, value, w);
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ static void readSpecificLineWidthManifest(String name, String value,
+ int lineWidth) throws IOException {
+ /*
+ * breaking header names is not allowed and hence cannot be reasonably
+ * tested. it cannot easily be helped, that invalid manifest files
+ * written by the previous Manifest version implementation are illegal
+ * if the header name is 69 or 70 bytes and in that case the name/value
+ * delimiter ": " was broken on a new line.
+ *
+ * changing the line width in Manifest#make72Safe(StringBuffer),
+ * however, also affects at which positions values are broken across
+ * lines (should always have affected values only and never header
+ * names or the delimiter) which is tested here.
+ *
+ * ideally, any previous Manifest implementation would have been used
+ * here to provide manifest files to test reading but these are no
+ * longer available in this version's sources and there might as well
+ * be other libraries writing manifests. Therefore, in order to be able
+ * to test any manifest file considered valid with respect to line
+ * breaks that could not possibly be produced with the current Manifest
+ * implementation, this test provides its own manifests in serialized
+ * form.
+ */
+ String lineBrokenSectionName = breakLines(lineWidth, "Name: " + name);
+ String lineBrokenNameAndValue = breakLines(lineWidth, name + ": " + value);
+
+ ByteArrayOutputStream mfBuf = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
+ mfBuf.write("Manifest-Version: 1.0".getBytes(UTF_8));
+ mfBuf.write("\r\n".getBytes(UTF_8));
+ mfBuf.write(lineBrokenNameAndValue.getBytes(UTF_8));
+ mfBuf.write("\r\n".getBytes(UTF_8));
+ mfBuf.write("\r\n".getBytes(UTF_8));
+ mfBuf.write(lineBrokenSectionName.getBytes(UTF_8));
+ mfBuf.write("\r\n".getBytes(UTF_8));
+ mfBuf.write(lineBrokenNameAndValue.getBytes(UTF_8));
+ mfBuf.write("\r\n".getBytes(UTF_8));
+ mfBuf.write("\r\n".getBytes(UTF_8));
+ byte[] mfBytes = mfBuf.toByteArray();
+ printManifest(mfBytes);
+
+ boolean nameValid = name.length() <= MAX_HEADER_NAME_LENGTH;
+
+ Manifest mf;
+ try {
+ mf = new Manifest(new ByteArrayInputStream(mfBytes));
+ } catch (IOException e) {
+ if (!nameValid &&
+ e.getMessage().startsWith("invalid header field")) {
+ // expected because the name is not valid
+ return;
+ }
+
+ throw new AssertionError(e.getMessage(), e);
+ }
+
+ assertTrue(nameValid, "failed to detect invalid manifest");
+
+ assertMainAndSectionValues(mf, name, value);
+ }
+
+ static String breakLines(int lineWidth, String nameAndValue) {
+ String lineBrokenNameAndValue = "";
+ int charsOnLastLine = 0;
+ for (int i = 0; i < nameAndValue.length(); i++) {
+ lineBrokenNameAndValue += nameAndValue.substring(i, i + 1);
+ charsOnLastLine++;
+ if (0 < i && i < nameAndValue.length() - 1
+ && charsOnLastLine == lineWidth) {
+ lineBrokenNameAndValue += "\r\n ";
+ charsOnLastLine = 1;
+ }
+ }
+ return lineBrokenNameAndValue;
+ }
+
+ static byte[] writeManifest(String name, String value) throws IOException {
+ /*
+ * writing manifest main headers is implemented separately from
+ * writing named sections manifest headers:
+ * - java.util.jar.Attributes.writeMain(DataOutputStream)
+ * - java.util.jar.Attributes.write(DataOutputStream)
+ * which is why this is also covered separately in this test by
+ * always adding the same value twice, in the main attributes as
+ * well as in a named section (using the header name also as the
+ * section name).
+ */
+
+ Manifest mf = new Manifest();
+ mf.getMainAttributes().put(Name.MANIFEST_VERSION, "1.0");
+ mf.getMainAttributes().putValue(name, value);
+
+ Attributes section = new Attributes();
+ section.putValue(name, value);
+ mf.getEntries().put(name, section);
+
+ ByteArrayOutputStream out = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
+ mf.write(out);
+ byte[] mfBytes = out.toByteArray();
+ printManifest(mfBytes);
+ return mfBytes;
+ }
+
+ private static void printManifest(byte[] mfBytes) {
+ final String sepLine = "----------------------------------------------"
+ + "---------------------|-|-|"; // |-positions: ---68-70-72
+ System.out.println(sepLine);
+ System.out.print(new String(mfBytes, UTF_8));
+ System.out.println(sepLine);
+ }
+
+ private static void assertMainAndSectionValues(Manifest mf, String name,
+ String value) {
+ String mainValue = mf.getMainAttributes().getValue(name);
+ String sectionValue = mf.getAttributes(name).getValue(name);
+
+ assertEquals(value, mainValue, "value different in main section");
+ assertEquals(value, sectionValue, "value different in named section");
+ }
+
+}
diff -r 678e1ec433a0 test/jdk/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/LineBrokenMultiByteCharacter.java
--- a/test/jdk/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/LineBrokenMultiByteCharacter.java Fri Feb 02 02:55:00 2018 +0000
+++ b/test/jdk/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/LineBrokenMultiByteCharacter.java Fri Feb 02 19:51:05 2018 +0100
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/*
- * Copyright (c) 2017, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright (c) 2018, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
* DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
*
* This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
* @see #verifyClassNameLineBroken(JarFile, String)
*/
static final String testClassName =
- "LineBrokenMultiByteCharacterA1234567890B1234567890C123456789D12\u00E9xyz.class";
+ "LineBrokenMultiByteCharacterA1234567890B1234567890C123456789D1234\u00E9xyz.class";
static final String anotherName =
"LineBrokenMultiByteCharacterA1234567890B1234567890C123456789D1234567890.class";
