Hi Max,
I looked at updating the warning string but figured that it might have
been of no interest to end users. How about this edit then ?
+ {"posix.attributes.detected", "POSIX file permission attributes
detected. These attributes are ignored when signing and are not
protected by th
Are you going to update the warning text or create a new one?
Thanks,
Max
> On Aug 26, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>
> This is a follow on from the recent 8218021 fix. The jarsigner tool removes
> symlink attribute data from zipfiles when signing them. jarsigner should
> preserve thi
This is a follow on from the recent 8218021 fix. The jarsigner tool
removes symlink attribute data from zipfiles when signing them.
jarsigner should preserve this data. The fix involves preserving the 16
bits associated with the file attributes (instead of the current 12).
That's done in ZipFil
Looks good.
Thanks,
Hai-May
> On Aug 26, 2020, at 10:13 AM, Rajan Halade wrote:
>
> Please review this update to remove key intermittent from AmazonCA test. This
> test no longer fails intermittently.
>
> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@
> /*
> * @test
> * @bug 8233223
> - * @key intermittent
> * @s
It's good. Thanks!
Xuelei
On 8/26/2020 10:13 AM, Rajan Halade wrote:
Please review this update to remove key intermittent from AmazonCA test.
This test no longer fails intermittently.
@@ -24,7 +24,6 @@
/*
* @test
* @bug 8233223
*- * @key intermittent*
* @summary Interoperability t
Please review this update to remove key intermittent from AmazonCA test. This
test no longer fails intermittently.
@@ -24,7 +24,6 @@
/*
* @test
* @bug 8233223
- * @key intermittent
* @summary Interoperability tests with Amazon's CA1, CA2, CA3, and CA4
* @build ValidatePathWithParams
*
On 8/21/20 2:14 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
Is it intentional to use toString() in
src/jdk.jartool/share/classes/sun/security/tools/jarsigner/Main.java?
Normally, toString() is kind of loose, not as strict as getName().
In this case I think toString() is ok, since jarsigner is printing
informatio
On 8/21/20 2:01 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Looks fine to me.
Just a trivial format comment. Some use link for "RFC 2253", some do
not. It's OK. And it's good as well if you want to use a uniform style.
Good point. Several methods in X509CertSelector and X509CRLSelector
reference RFC 2253 severa
