RFR: JDK-8257401: Use switch expressions in jdk.internal.net.http and java.net.http

2020-11-30 Thread Kartik Ohri
Hi! Kindly review this patch to replace switch statements with switch expressions (where it makes sense) in the http client modules. The rationale is to improve readability of the code. Regards, Kartik - Commit messages: - Use switch expressions in jdk.internal.net.http and java.ne

Re: RFR: JDK-8257401: Use switch expressions in jdk.internal.net.http and java.net.http [v2]

2020-11-30 Thread Kartik Ohri
> Hi! > Kindly review this patch to replace switch statements with switch expressions > (where it makes sense) in the http client modules. The rationale is to > improve readability of the code. > Regards, > Kartik Kartik Ohri has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous commits

Integrated: 8257083: Security infra test failures caused by JDK-8202343

2020-11-30 Thread Sean Mullan
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:24:52 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: > There are several infra test failures that were caused by the fix for > JDK-8202343 (Disable TLS 1.0 and 1.1). > > The problem is that > test/jdk/javax/net/ssl/TLSCommon/interop/JdkProcClient.java is designed to be > run with different ve

Re: RFR: 8213719: Both sect163r2 and sect163k1 are default curves for field size 163

2020-11-30 Thread Valerie Peng
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:40:35 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > There should only be one curve having type BD or PD in CurveDB.java for any > given length. Here we keep the last one (sect163r2) so there's no behavior > change. > > I tried to search on the net to see if there is a consensus on which cur

RFR: JDK-8257448: Clean duplicated non-null check in the SunJSSE provider implementation

2020-11-30 Thread Xue-Lei Andrew Fan
In the SunJSSE provider implementation, there are a few non-null check, used together with "instanceof" check. For such cases, the non-null check is redundant as it could be covered by the "instanceof" check. This update will remove the non-null check, like: - if ((cause != null) && (cause i

Re: RFR: JDK-8166596: TLS support for the EdDSA signature algorithm [v4]

2020-11-30 Thread Jamil Nimeh
> Hello all, > This change brings in support for certificates with EdDSA keys (both Ed25519 > and Ed448) allowing those signature algorithms to be used both on the > certificates themselves and used during the handshaking process for messages > like CertificateVerify, ServerKeyExchange and so fo

Re: RFR: 8213719: Both sect163r2 and sect163k1 are default curves for field size 163

2020-11-30 Thread Weijun Wang
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:34:40 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote: > Based on CurveDB line 141, it seems we uses the first one and discards the > rest? Are you sure we keep the last one? > Don't have answers for your questions though. Before this change both sect163k1 and sect163r2 have "BD" so both will be

Re: RFR: JDK-8257448: Clean duplicated non-null check in the SunJSSE provider implementation

2020-11-30 Thread Sean Mullan
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:51:42 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote: > In the SunJSSE provider implementation, there are a few non-null check, used > together with "instanceof" check. For such cases, the non-null check is > redundant as it could be covered by the "instanceof" check. This update will

Re: RFR: 8213719: Both sect163r2 and sect163k1 are default curves for field size 163

2020-11-30 Thread Valerie Peng
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:42:35 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > > > > Based on CurveDB line 141, it seems we uses the first one and discards the > > rest? Are you sure we keep the last one? > > Don't have answers for your questions though. > > Before this change both sect163k1 and sect163r2 have "BD"

Re: RFR: 8213719: Both sect163r2 and sect163k1 are default curves for field size 163

2020-11-30 Thread Weijun Wang
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:07:03 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote: > > > Based on CurveDB line 141, it seems we uses the first one and discards > > > the rest? Are you sure we keep the last one? > > > Don't have answers for your questions though. > > > > > > Before this change both sect163k1 and sect163r2

Re: RFR: 8213719: Both sect163r2 and sect163k1 are default curves for field size 163

2020-11-30 Thread Valerie Peng
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:31:18 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> > Based on CurveDB line 141, it seems we uses the first one and discards >>> > the rest? Are you sure we keep the last one? >>> > Don't have answers for your questions though. >>> >>> Before this change both sect163k1 and sect16

Re: RFR: 8213719: Both sect163r2 and sect163k1 are default curves for field size 163

2020-11-30 Thread Valerie Peng
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:40:35 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > There should only be one curve having type BD or PD in CurveDB.java for any > given length. Here we keep the last one (sect163r2) so there's no behavior > change. > > I tried to search on the net to see if there is a consensus on which cur

Integrated: JDK-8257448: Clean duplicated non-null check in the SunJSSE provider implementation

2020-11-30 Thread Xue-Lei Andrew Fan
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:51:42 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote: > In the SunJSSE provider implementation, there are a few non-null check, used > together with "instanceof" check. For such cases, the non-null check is > redundant as it could be covered by the "instanceof" check. This update will

Integrated: 8213719: Both sect163r2 and sect163k1 are default curves for field size 163

2020-11-30 Thread Weijun Wang
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:40:35 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > There should only be one curve having type BD or PD in CurveDB.java for any > given length. Here we keep the last one (sect163r2) so there's no behavior > change. > > I tried to search on the net to see if there is a consensus on which cur

Re: RFR: 8213719: Both sect163r2 and sect163k1 are default curves for field size 163

2020-11-30 Thread Xue-Lei Andrew Fan
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:40:35 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: > There should only be one curve having type BD or PD in CurveDB.java for any > given length. Here we keep the last one (sect163r2) so there's no behavior > change. > > I tried to search on the net to see if there is a consensus on which cur

Re: RFR: 8244154: Update SunPKCS11 provider with PKCS11 v3.0 header files [v4]

2020-11-30 Thread Valerie Peng
> Could someone please help review this PKCS#11 v3.0 header files update? > > Changes are straight-forward as below: > 1) Updated pkcs11.h, pkcs11f.h, pkcs11t.h to v3.0 > 2) Updated java side w/ the new constants definitions and name/error code > mappings. > > For the native headers, it's a dire

Integrated: 8244154: Update SunPKCS11 provider with PKCS11 v3.0 header files

2020-11-30 Thread Valerie Peng
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:35:25 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote: > Could someone please help review this PKCS#11 v3.0 header files update? > > Changes are straight-forward as below: > 1) Updated pkcs11.h, pkcs11f.h, pkcs11t.h to v3.0 > 2) Updated java side w/ the new constants definitions and name/error co

Re: RFR: JDK-8257401: Use switch expressions in jdk.internal.net.http and java.net.http

2020-11-30 Thread John Jiang
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 11:45:42 GMT, Kartik Ohri wrote: > Hi! > Kindly review this patch to replace switch statements with switch expressions > (where it makes sense) in the http client modules. The rationale is to > improve readability of the code. > Regards, > Kartik Just a question. Do we hav