> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
> encountered when opening select APK, ZIP or JAR files. Please see refer to
> the
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:33:30 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
>> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
>> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
>> encountered when open
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:15:21 GMT, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Lance Andersen has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional
>> co
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:33:30 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
>> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
>> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
>> encountered when open
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:33:30 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> This PR updates the extra field validation added as part of
>> [JDK-8302483](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302483) to deal with
>> issues seen with 3rd party tools/libraries where a ZipException may be
>> encountered when open
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 18:03:20 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>> Lance Andersen has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional
>> c
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 18:22:27 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> src/jdk.zipfs/share/classes/jdk/nio/zipfs/ZipFileSystem.java line 3108:
>>
>>> 3106: break;
>>> 3107: }
>>> 3108: if (size == ZIP64_MINVAL) {
>>
>> Note that we always incr
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:44:06 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/zip/ZipFile.java line 1364:
>>
>>> 1362: * As the fields must appear in order, the block size
>>> indicates which
>>> 1363: * fields to expect:
>>> 1364: * 0
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 21:38:02 GMT, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Hi Volker,
>>
>> I understand your point and I had done that previously but decided I did
>> not like the flow of the code that way which is why I moved the check. I
>> prefer to leave it as is.
>
> I don't think this is a question
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:36:47 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> I don't think this is a question of "taste" because
>> `isZip64ExtBlockSizeValid()` suggests that the method will check for *valid*
>> sizes and to my understanding `0` is not a valid input. This method might
>> also be called from other
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:39:37 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote:
>> I think I agree with Volker that it would be better if
>> isZip64ExtBlockSizeValid continued to return false for block size 0.
>
> OK, I have made the suggest change that you both prefer.
>
> Thank you for your input
I'm also happy to
11 matches
Mail list logo
