Finished.java
-------------
In each handshake, Finished messages are delivered twice. One from
client, and the other one from the server side. Catch Finished message
and use the final one of them should be sufficient.
In the Finished.java implementation, the signal of the final Finished
message is the handshakeFinished field is set to true.
Please move line 582:
582 recordEvent(chc.conContext.conSession);
to line 558:
556 // handshake context cleanup.
557 chc.handshakeFinished = true;
558
Please move line 632:
632 recordEvent(shc.conContext.conSession);
to line 608:
606 // handshake context cleanup.
607 shc.handshakeFinished = true;
608
Please remove line 838:
838 recordEvent(shc.conContext.conSession);
Please remove line 984:
984 recordEvent(chc.conContext.conSession);
No more comment.
Thanks,
Xuelei
On 6/27/2018 11:57 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Hi Sean,
I may reply in several replies.
PKIXMasterCertPathValidator.java
--------------------------------
+ CertChainEvent cce = new CertChainEvent();
+ if(cce.isEnabled() || EventHelper.loggingSecurity()) {
+ String c = reversedCertList.stream()
+ .map(x -> x.getSerialNumber().toString(16))
+ .collect(Collectors.joining(", "));
+ EventHelper.commitCertChainEvent(cce, c);
+ }
No matter the event or the JFR mechanism is enabled or not, the above
code will create a new instance. Is the return value of cce.isEnabled()
dynamically changed or static?
Is there a need to support both logging and JFR? I'm new to record
events. I did not get the point to use both.
Thanks,
Xuelei
On 6/26/2018 3:18 PM, Seán Coffey wrote:
Erik,
I rebased the patch with TLS v1.3 integration today. I hadn't realized
how much the handshaker code had changed. Hopefully, I'll get a review
from security dev team on that front.
Regards the JFR semantics, I believe the edits should match majority
of requests . I still have a preference for the test infra design for
these new logger/JFR tests used in version 1 of webrev. I think it
makes sense to keep the test functionality together - no sense in
separating them out into different components IMO. Also, some of the
edits to the JFR testing were made to test for the new dual log/record
functionality. I might catch up with you tomorrow to see what the best
arrangement would be.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8148188.v2/webrev/
regards,
Sean.
On 25/06/2018 21:22, Seán Coffey wrote:
Many thanks for the review comments Erik. Replies inline.
On 24/06/2018 14:21, Erik Gahlin wrote:
Hi Sean,
Some of the changes in the webrev belongs to JDK-8203629 and should
be removed for clarity.
Some initial comments:
default.jfc, profile.jfr:
The events should not have control="enable-exceptions". The purpose
of the control attribute is so to provide parameterized
configuration of events for JMC. As it is now, the security events
will be enabled when a user turns on the exception events.
Makes sense. I'll remove that parameter.
X509CertEvent:
You should use milliseconds since epoch to represent a date instead
of a string value, i.e.
@Label("Valid From")
@Timestamp(Timestamp.MILLISECONDS_SINCE_EPOCH)
public long validFrom;
@Label("Valid Until")
@Timestamp(Timestamp.MILLISECONDS_SINCE_EPOCH)
public long validUntil;
The CertificateValidity class operates on Date Object values. I'll
work with the Date.getTime() method then (and update the Logger
formatting)
This following annotation adds little value
@Description("Details of Security Property")
I would either remove the annotation, or provide information that
helps a user understand the event. For instance, what is X509, and
what kind of certificates are we talking about?
Yes - that looks like the wrong Description. I'll review all of these
fields.
@Category("Java Application")
I'm a bit worried that we will pollute the "Java Application"
namespace if we add lots of JDK events in that category. We may want
to add a new top level category "Java Development Kit", analogous to
the "Java Virtual Machine" category, and put all security related
events in subcategory, perhaps called "Security".
Yes - Open to suggestions. "Security" sounds like a good suggestion.
@Label("X509Cert")
The label should be human readable name, with spaces, title cased
etc. I would recommend "X.509 Certificate". In general, avoid
abbreviations like "certs" and instead use labels such as
"Certificate Chain". The label should be short and not a full sentence.
For details see,
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/10/docs/api/jdk/jfr/Label.html
I think it would be good to separate testing of JFR and logging into
different files / tests. I would prefer that the test name is the
same as the event prefixed with "Test", i.e
TestX509CertificateEvent, as this is the pattern used by other JFR
tests.
I'll take a look at that pattern again. I've separated out the
current tests into an (a) outer test to analyze the logger output and
(b) the inner test which checks for JFR correctness. I did include
extra logic to make sure that the EventHelper configuration was
working correctly. "Events.assertField" looks very helpful. Thanks
for the pointer.
Let me take on board the suggestions below and get a new webrev out
on Tuesday.
regards,
Sean.
I reworked one of the tests to how I like to see it:
/*
* @test
* @key jfr
* @library /test/lib
* @run main/othervm jdk.jfr.event.security.TestX509CertificateEvent
*/
public class TestX509CertificateEvent {
private static final String CERTIFICATE_1 = "...";
private static final String CERTIFICATE_2 = "...";
public static void main(String... args) throws
CertificateException {
Recording r = new Recording();
r.enable(EventNames.X509Certificate).withoutStackTrace();
r.start();
CertificateFactory cf =
CertificateFactory.getInstance("X.509");
cf.generateCertificate(new
ByteArrayInputStream(CERTIFICATE_1.getBytes()));
cf.generateCertificate(new
ByteArrayInputStream(CERTIFICATE_2.getBytes()));
// Make sure only one event per certificate
cf.generateCertificate(new
ByteArrayInputStream(CERTIFICATE_1.getBytes()));
cf.generateCertificate(new
ByteArrayInputStream(CERTIFICATE_2.getBytes()));
r.stop();
List<RecordedEvent> events = Events.fromRecording(r);
Asserts.assertEquals(events.size(), 2, "Expected two X.509
Certificate events");
assertEvent(events, "1000", "SHA256withRSA",
"CN=SSLCertificate, O=SomeCompany",
"CN=Intermediate CA Cert, O=SomeCompany",
"RSA", 2048);
assertEvent(events, "1000", "SHA256withRSA",
"CN=SSLCertificate, O=SomeCompany",
"CN=Intermediate CA Cert, O=SomeCompany",
"RSA", 2048);
}
private static void assertEvent(List<RecordedEvent> events,
String certID, String algId, String subject,
String issuer, String keyType, int length) throws
Exception {
for (RecordedEvent e : events) {
if (e.getString("serialNumber").equals(certID)) {
Events.assertField(e, "algId").equal(algId);
...
return;
}
}
System.out.println(events);
throw new Exception("Could not find event with Cert ID: " +
certID);
}
}
The reworked example uses the Events.assertField method, which will
give context if the assertion fails. Keeping the test simple, means
it can be analyzed quickly if it fails in testing. There is no new
test framework to learn, or methods to search for, and it is usually
not hard to determine if the failure is product, test or
infrastructure related, and what component (team) should be assigned
the issue. The use of EventNames.X509Certificate means all
occurrences of the event can be tracked done in an IDE using find by
reference.
Thanks
Erik
Following on from the recent JDK-8203629 code review, I'd like to
propose enhancements on how we can record events in security libs.
The introduction of the JFR libraries can give us much better ways
of examining JDK actions. For the initial phase, I'm looking to
enhance some key security library events in JDK 11 so that they can
be either recorded to JFR, logged to a traditional logger, or both.
Examples of how useful JFR recordings could be can be seen here :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/event_snaps/X509Event_1.png
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/event_snaps/securityProp_1.png
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/event_snaps/securityProp_2.png
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/event_snaps/TLSEvent_1.png
securityProp_2.png gives an example of how the JFR recording can be
queried to quickly locate events of interest (in this case, code
setting the jdk.tls.* Security properties). I still need to clean
up the TLSEvents testcase to improve test coverage and hope to do
that in coming days.
JBS record :
* https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8148188
webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8148188.v1/webrev/