Clearing buffers and temporary arrays to avoid data leaks in cipher operations.
-
Commit messages:
- the fix
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9158/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=9158&range=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8282038
St
Resolves
[JDK-8220732](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8220732?filter=42718). The
additional guidance as been added to the javadoc for `setSeed(long)`
-
Commit messages:
- Resolves JDK-8220732. The additional guidance as been added to the javadoc
for setSeed(long)
Changes: ht
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:18:52 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
>> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
>> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we
>> run into the exce
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:18:52 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
>> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
>> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we
>> run into the exce
> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we run
> into the exception below :
>
> import com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapURL;
>
> S
specific for such
general parsing rules.
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
Von: core-libs-dev im Auftrag von
Matthias Baesken
Gesendet: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 1:36:36 PM
An: [email protected] ;
[email protected]
Betreff: Re: RFR: JDK
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:36:36 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
>> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
>> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we
>> run into the exce
> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we run
> into the exception below :
>
> import com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapURL;
>
> S
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:43:54 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
>> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
>> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we
>> run into the exce
> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we run
> into the exception below :
>
> import com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapURL;
>
> S
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:16:17 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we run
> into the exceptio
At the beginning, this bug was about the incorrect warning message "Unsupported
authentication scheme" on line 1051 which should have been "This key algorithm
has been checked, skip it".
Now, it's a code refactoring that emphasizes only the key algorithm inside a
signature scheme is checked in
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 14:29:44 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> > Hi Daniel, should we maybe better print something like "check for not
> > allowed characters" in the exception ? Do you have an easy and cheap way in
> > mind to the get the unsupported character (in this case "_") to add it to
> > the
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:26:32 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> Hi Daniel, should we maybe better print something like "check for not allowed
> characters" in the exception ? Do you have an easy and cheap way in mind to
> the get the unsupported character (in this case "_") to add it to the output
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:30:45 GMT, Kevin Driver wrote:
>> This PR resolves: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8267860
>
> Kevin Driver 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 mer
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:19:27 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> I might question whether the added "null:-1" information is really helpful,
> or just as confusing however.
Hi Daniel, should we maybe better print something like "check for not allowed
characters" in the exception ? Do you have an easy a
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:55:04 GMT, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
>> Kevin Driver 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 Sat, 28 May 2022 12:00:00 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
> Hashtable doesn't allow `null` values. So, instead of pair
> `containsKey`/`remove` calls, we can directly call `remove` and then compare
> result with `null`.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/2c461acfebd28fe5ef62805cbb004f91a3b18f
> This PR resolves: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8267860
Kevin Driver 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 commits si
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:12:30 GMT, Kevin Driver wrote:
> This PR resolves: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8267860
LGTM.
test/jdk/sun/security/ssl/ALPN/AlpnGreaseTest.java line 86:
> 84:
> 85: private static void findGreaseInClientHello(byte[] bytes) throws
> Exception {
> 86:
This PR resolves: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8267860
-
Commit messages:
- Update AlpnGreaseTest.java
- JDK-8267860: off-by-one error
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9131/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=9131&range=00
Issue: https://b
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:12:30 GMT, Kevin Driver wrote:
> This PR resolves: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8267860
Sorry for the noisy comment section... I was just trying to trigger jcheck. It
looks to have been triggered.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9131
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 21:27:58 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285263 Minor cleanup could be done
>> in java.security
>>
>> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
>> a single code review, so it was decided to split into s
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 21:27:58 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285263 Minor cleanup could be done
>> in java.security
>>
>> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
>> a single code review, so it was decided to split into s
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 21:41:50 GMT, Hai-May Chao wrote:
>> Please review a small fix in CryptoPolicyParser class that it should not
>> pass “processedPermissions” parameter by value.
>> Ran MACH5 tier1 and tier2 without failures.
>
> Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request incrementally with one
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 21:44:16 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> A privilegedGetProperty method? That would be the subject of a new bug I
>> think.
>
> Yes.
JDK-8288271 has been created
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/8319
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:35:16 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/SecureRandom.java line 905:
>>
>>> 903: private static final Pattern pattern =
>>> 904: Pattern.compile(
>>> 905: "\\s*([\\S&&[^:,]]*)(:([\\S&&[^,]]*))?\\s*(,(.*)
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 21:27:58 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285263 Minor cleanup could be done
>> in java.security
>>
>> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
>> a single code review, so it was decided to split into s
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:31:56 GMT, Rajan Halade wrote:
>> Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fixed copyright
>
> test/jdk/javax/crypto/CryptoPermissions/InconsistentEntries.java line 38:
>
>> 36: import java.sec
> Please review a small fix in CryptoPolicyParser class that it should not pass
> “processedPermissions” parameter by value.
> Ran MACH5 tier1 and tier2 without failures.
Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Manual test in
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285263 Minor cleanup could be done
> in java.security
>
> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
> a single code review, so it was decided to split into smaller chunks. This is
> one such chunk:
>
> open/src/jav
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 16:01:48 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - Merge
>> - fourth iteration
>> - Merge
>> - Merge
>> - third iteration
>> - Merge
>> - M
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 16:06:12 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - Merge
>> - fourth iteration
>> - Merge
>> - Merge
>> - third iteration
>> - Merge
>> - M
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 15:53:06 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - Merge
>> - fourth iteration
>> - Merge
>> - Merge
>> - third iteration
>> - Merge
>> - M
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:16:17 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we run
> into the exceptio
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:19:05 GMT, Hai-May Chao wrote:
>> Please review a small fix in CryptoPolicyParser class that it should not
>> pass “processedPermissions” parameter by value.
>> Ran MACH5 tier1 and tier2 without failures.
>
> Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request incrementally with one
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 15:09:58 GMT, Rajan Halade wrote:
>> Updated with new test artifacts from CA.
>
> Rajan Halade has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Adjust hard wrap to 90 chars
Marked as reviewed by mullan (Reviewer).
-
> Please review a small fix in CryptoPolicyParser class that it should not pass
> “processedPermissions” parameter by value.
> Ran MACH5 tier1 and tier2 without failures.
Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Fixed copyrigh
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 22:54:20 GMT, Hai-May Chao wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/CryptoPolicyParser.java line 202:
>>
>>> 200: if (!processedPermissions.isEmpty()) {
>>> 201: throw new ParsingException(st.lineno(), "Inconsistent
>>> policy");
>>> 202:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 20:52:33 GMT, Hai-May Chao wrote:
>> Please review a small fix in CryptoPolicyParser class that it should not
>> pass “processedPermissions” parameter by value.
>> Ran MACH5 tier1 and tier2 without failures.
>
> Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request incrementally with two
> Updated with new test artifacts from CA.
Rajan Halade has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Adjust hard wrap to 90 chars
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9097/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk
> Updated test artifacts. Test will continue to fail intermittently with what
> appears to be issue in CA infra. JDK-8277855 will track it.
Rajan Halade has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Adjust hard wrap to 90 chars
-
> Updated test certificates to new from CA. I did a loop run of this test and
> don't see the intermittent failure anymore.
Rajan Halade has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
adjust hard wrap to 90 chars
-
Changes:
- all
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:31:29 GMT, Rajan Halade wrote:
> Updated test artifacts. Test will continue to fail intermittently with what
> appears to be issue in CA infra. JDK-8277855 will track it.
Marked as reviewed by mullan (Reviewer).
test/jdk/security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:16:17 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we run
> into the exceptio
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:41:48 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> Hi Alan , sure we could use something like the already existing hostInfo of
> property jdk.includeInException private static final boolean
> enhancedExceptionText = SecurityProperties.includedInExceptions("hostInfo");
> and make the e
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:15:11 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> We have to be cautious about leaking security sensitive configuration in
> exception messages. Can you look at the security property
> jdk.includeInException (conf/security/java.security) and usages in the JDK
> for ideas on how this migh
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 18:59:36 GMT, Rajan Halade wrote:
> Updated test certificates to new from CA. I did a loop run of this test and
> don't see the intermittent failure anymore.
Marked as reviewed by mullan (Reviewer).
test/jdk/security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/A
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:16:17 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> When trying to construct an LdapURL object with a bad input string (in this
> example the _ in ad_jbs is causing issues), and not using
> the backward compatibility flag -Dcom.sun.jndi.ldapURLParsing="legacy" we run
> into the exceptio
On Sat, 28 May 2022 12:00:00 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
> Hashtable doesn't allow `null` values. So, instead of pair
> `containsKey`/`remove` calls, we can directly call `remove` and then compare
> result with `null`.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/2c461acfebd28fe5ef62805cbb004f91a3b18f
> A Test updated to cover the getCodeSigners.
Sibabrata Sahoo has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
commits since the last revision:
- 8209935: Test to cover CodeSource.getCodeSigners()
- 8209935: Test to cover CodeSource.getCodeSigners()
-
Changes:
- a
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:12:26 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Sibabrata Sahoo has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 8209935: Test to cover CodeSource.getCodeSigners()
>
> test/jdk/java/security/CodeSource/CertsMatch.java line 27:
>
>
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 22:29:36 GMT, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
>> Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> verb
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/util/math/IntegerModuloP.java line
> 161:
>
>> 159: // This me
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 23:10:05 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Add comment to the method.
>
> Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> verb
Thanks, LGTM.
-
Marked as reviewed by jnimeh (Reviewer).
PR: https://git.
> Add comment to the method.
Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
verb
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9115/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9115/files/36741bba..15ef85fe
We
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:00:55 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Inconsistent entries test
>> - Inconsistent entries test
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/CryptoPolicyPars
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:34:56 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Add comment to the method.
src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/util/math/IntegerModuloP.java line 161:
> 159: // This method is used in 2 cases:
> 160: // 1. To calculate the inverse of a number in ECDSAOperations,
> 161
Add comment to the method.
-
Commit messages:
- add comment
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9115/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=9115&range=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8287178
Stats: 8 lines in 1 file changed: 7 ins; 0 del
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 10:30:45 GMT, Sibabrata Sahoo wrote:
>> A Test updated to cover the getCodeSigners.
>
> Sibabrata Sahoo has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> 8209935: Test to cover CodeSource.getCodeSigners()
Marked as reviewe
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 20:52:33 GMT, Hai-May Chao wrote:
>> Please review a small fix in CryptoPolicyParser class that it should not
>> pass “processedPermissions” parameter by value.
>> Ran MACH5 tier1 and tier2 without failures.
>
> Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request incrementally with two
Updated test certificates to new from CA. I did a loop run of this test and
don't see the intermittent failure anymore.
-
Commit messages:
- 8271838: AmazonCA.java interop test fails
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9111/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?rep
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 21:02:16 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>> Session ticket extension should only contain pre-TLS1.3 stateless session
>> tickets; it should not be used for sending TLS1.3 pre-shared keys.
>
> Daniel Jeliński has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit
Updated test artifacts. Test will continue to fail intermittently with what
appears to be issue in CA infra. JDK-8277855 will track it.
-
Commit messages:
- 8288132: Update test artifacts in QuoVadis CA interop tests
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9110/files
Webrev: htt
Updated with new test artifacts from CA.
-
Commit messages:
- 8224768: Test ActalisCA.java fails
Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/9097/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=9097&range=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8224768
Stat
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 16:12:36 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - Merge
>> - fourth iteration
>> - Merge
>> - Merge
>> - third iteration
>> - Merge
>> - M
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 16:12:05 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - Merge
>> - fourth iteration
>> - Merge
>> - Merge
>> - third iteration
>> - Merge
>> - M
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 15:50:38 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - Merge
>> - fourth iteration
>> - Merge
>> - Merge
>> - third iteration
>> - Merge
>> - M
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 15:46:28 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - Merge
>> - fourth iteration
>> - Merge
>> - Merge
>> - third iteration
>> - Merge
>> - M
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 17:49:38 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
>> as title.
>
> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> clean up Calendar
I gave a quick look at the security files touched and seems straightforward. I
didn't see any p
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 17:49:38 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
>> as title.
>
> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> clean up Calendar
Running tests and awaiting review from security team. Our internal test system
is backlogged an
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:26:17 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> do it as naotoj said
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Calendar.java line 2648:
>
>> 2646: set.add("greg
> as title.
XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
clean up Calendar
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8302/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8302/files/bacc9ca8..95d59b97
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 17:34:04 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> do it as naotoj said
>
> test/jdk/java/util/HashMap/WhiteBoxResizeTest.java line 441:
>
>> 439: }
>> 440: }
>>
> as title.
XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
commits since the last revision:
- remove null check for Capacitiable in WhiteBoxResizeTest
- Rename type variable per CSR request; minor spec wording change.
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.open
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:37:02 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285263 Minor cleanup could be done
>> in java.security
>>
>> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
>> a single code review, so it was decided to split into sm
Switch to wide char version of `CertGetNameString` to get the non-ASCII name.
-
Commit messages:
- the fix
Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/9085/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=9085&range=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-6522
> A Test updated to cover the getCodeSigners.
Sibabrata Sahoo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
8209935: Test to cover CodeSource.getCodeSigners()
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8286/files
-
> A Test updated to cover the getCodeSigners.
Sibabrata Sahoo 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 four additional
commits since the last re
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 05:05:13 GMT, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
> The bug and the PR could have used a lot more description that the issue here
> is that 1.2 and 1.3 are enabled at the same time.
As far as I can tell, 1.2 and 1.3 are both enabled by default.
> One could ask the reverse, if the resum
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 21:02:16 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>> Session ticket extension should only contain pre-TLS1.3 stateless session
>> tickets; it should not be used for sending TLS1.3 pre-shared keys.
>
> Daniel Jeliński has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 21:02:16 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>> Session ticket extension should only contain pre-TLS1.3 stateless session
>> tickets; it should not be used for sending TLS1.3 pre-shared keys.
>
> Daniel Jeliński has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 20:52:33 GMT, Hai-May Chao wrote:
>> Please review a small fix in CryptoPolicyParser class that it should not
>> pass “processedPermissions” parameter by value.
>> Ran MACH5 tier1 and tier2 without failures.
>
> Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request incrementally with two
> Please review a small fix in CryptoPolicyParser class that it should not pass
> “processedPermissions” parameter by value.
> Ran MACH5 tier1 and tier2 without failures.
Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
commits since the last revision:
- Inconsistent
> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
> test cases are impacted.
Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request with a
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285263 Minor cleanup could be done
> in java.security
>
> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
> a single code review, so it was decided to split into smaller chunks. This is
> one such chunk:
>
> open/src/jav
> This is a cleanup of the memory session implementation. The main new concept
> is that `MemorySessionImpl` is split into two parts: there is an
> implementation of memory session and then there is a state abstraction
> (`MemorySessionImpl.State`). This allows to share the state across multiple
> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
> test cases are impacted.
Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request with a
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 21:09:15 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> back to wait 1 second
>
> No, it doesn't work. You can build a fastdebug build with `configure
> --enable-debug`.
> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
> test cases are impacted.
Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request with a
On Sat, 28 May 2022 12:00:00 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
> Hashtable doesn't allow `null` values. So, instead of pair
> `containsKey`/`remove` calls, we can directly call `remove` and then compare
> result with `null`.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/2c461acfebd28fe5ef62805cbb004f91a3b18f
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 15:47:21 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> This is a cleanup of the memory session implementation. The main new concept
> is that `MemorySessionImpl` is split into two parts: there is an
> implementation of memory session and then there is a state abstraction
> (`MemorySess
This is a cleanup of the memory session implementation. The main new concept is
that `MemorySessionImpl` is split into two parts: there is an implementation of
memory session and then there is a state abstraction
(`MemorySessionImpl.State`). This allows to share the state across multiple
sessio
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 21:02:16 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>> Session ticket extension should only contain pre-TLS1.3 stateless session
>> tickets; it should not be used for sending TLS1.3 pre-shared keys.
>
> Daniel Jeliński has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit
> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
> test cases are impacted.
Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request increme
> Session ticket extension should only contain pre-TLS1.3 stateless session
> tickets; it should not be used for sending TLS1.3 pre-shared keys.
Daniel Jeliński has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
different check for TLS13
--
On Tue, 31 May 2022 13:47:28 GMT, Sean Coffey wrote:
>> Session ticket extension should only contain pre-TLS1.3 stateless session
>> tickets; it should not be used for sending TLS1.3 pre-shared keys.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/SessionTicketExtension.java line
> 410:
>
>>
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 01:53:25 GMT, Hai-May Chao wrote:
> Please review a small fix in CryptoPolicyParser class that it should not pass
> “processedPermissions” parameter by value.
> Ran MACH5 tier1 and tier2 without failures.
The fix looks fine. Could you add a test for this in the
`test/jdk/jav
On Fri, 27 May 2022 18:40:32 GMT, XenoAmess wrote:
>> as title.
>
> XenoAmess has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> do it as naotoj said
Changes to `net` and `http` look good.
-
Marked as reviewed by dfuchs (Reviewe
> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
> test cases are impacted.
Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request increme
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 21:07:16 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> This is a follow up update per comments in [JDK-8287384
>> PR](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8907). The tier1 and tier2 test in
>> open part looks good to me. Please help to run Mach5 just case the closed
>> test cases are i
1 - 100 of 11076 matches
Mail list logo
