Hi Max,
If using "-J-Duser.timezone=null", it looks jarsigner always uses
timezone GMT-8/PST, but not the local timezone.
Currently, the testing machines should use GMT-7/PDT.
If no user.timezone is specified, jarsigner just uses local timezone.
Please review the updated webrev:
http://cr.open
Hi Jamil,
This looks good to me.
I read through the discussion about running the Mac in hardware, and I
think it is fine if this is not supported by SunJCE. It doesn't look
like the current API for Mac fully allows this, and even if it did, it
would be simpler to stay in SunJCE once that prov
Hi John,
The new webrev looks mostly fine, except that I don't like the new lambda in
Test.java. But I'll leave it to you to decide if that style is good.
Have you been able to reproduce the original test failure and make sure your
updated test passes in the same environment? Otherwise, I canno
Hi Adam, this looks good. For your test it seems perfectly reasonable
to make a mock SecureRandom that lets you control the bits since you're
trying to run a known-answer test for a function that would normally be
non-deterministic. Just one really tiny nit, update the copyright on ec.c.
--J
Hi guys,
Can someone give a quick review for the release note for JDK-8218723
(the fix for SunJCE PBKDF2 SecretKeyFactories using SunJCE for the
underlying PRF)? Should be really quick. I have it here:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220791
Thanks,
--Jamil
A couple of comments:
*) I think it would be helpful to also describe the change using API
terms, so it is more clear to programmers who may not recognize all the
crypto terminology. Perhaps: "... will now exclusively use the SunJCE
Mac service for the underlying pseudorandom function (PRF)."
Thanks, I didn't see RN-Change on the guidance page I was looking at for
the notes. Underlying this change in behavior is an actual issue (that
a BC FIPS provider was causing SunJCE's PBKDF SecKeyFac from working due
to the interaction between the SKF and the underlying Mac from the two
differ
Hi Max,
On 2019/3/18 22:04, Weijun Wang wrote:
Hi John,
The new webrev looks mostly fine, except that I don't like the new lambda in
Test.java. But I'll leave it to you to decide if that style is good.
Have you been able to reproduce the original test failure and make sure your
updated test
> On Mar 19, 2019, at 7:19 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi Max,
>
> On 2019/3/18 22:04, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> The new webrev looks mostly fine, except that I don't like the new lambda in
>> Test.java. But I'll leave it to you to decide if that style is good.
>>
>> Have
