Sorry, I might be not clear enough about the usage of MoreDrbgParameters and 
securerandom.drbg.config. You are still using MoreDrbgParameters in 
ApiTest.java. For example,

 131                     SecureRandomParameters mParam = new MoreDrbgParameters(
 132                             null, mech, alg, nonce, df, (Instantiation) 
param);
 133                     Security.setProperty(DRBG_CONFIG, mech);
 134                     SecureRandom sr = SecureRandom.getInstance("DRBG", 
mParam);

What I wish to see is something like

             Security.setProperty(DRBG_CONFIG, mech + "," + alg + ","
                         + (df ? "use_df" : "no_df"));
             SecureRandom sr = SecureRandom.getInstance("DRBG", param);

So you are still able to iterate through different combinations of mech + alg + 
df using a publicly supported API. (Nonce will not be tested, it's not a part 
of the API.)

Thanks
Max


> On May 16, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Sibabrata Sahoo <sibabrata.sa...@oracle.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Max,
> 
> Please find the updated webrev: 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssahoo/8141039/webrev.02/
> 
> The changes includes,
> - ApiTest.java : Removed printing unnecessary message inside checkException() 
> method.
> - GetInstanceTest.java 
>       - Moved the test back into " java/security/SecureRandom/ ".
>       - Removed all reference to MoreDrbgParameters and EntropySource.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Siba
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wang Weijun 
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:14 AM
> To: Sibabrata Sahoo
> Cc: security-dev@openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: [9] RFR: 8141039: Test Task: Develop new tests for JEP 273: 
> DRBG-Based SecureRandom Implementations
> 
> 
>> On May 12, 2016, at 1:46 AM, Sibabrata Sahoo <sibabrata.sa...@oracle.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Max,
>> 
>> Please find the updated webrev: 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssahoo/8141039/webrev.01/
>> 
>> Changes includes:
>> - Removed otherVM option and default "securerandom.drbg.config" will get 
>> reset after each DRBG test run. This change affected to all test files.
>> - Addressed all the following comments for GetAlgorithm.java, 
>> EnoughSeedTest.java, MultiThreadTest.java.
>> - Moved ApiTest.java, into "sun/security/provider/SecureRandom" because it 
>> uses MoreDrbgParameters.
>>  - remove SHA1 and TDEA, 3KEYTDEA" ("3 KEY TDEA", "DESEDE")
>>  - corrected the logic for checkException() reported bellow.
> 
> I don't see a difference. You print out messages in those "if (strength > n)" 
> blocks but there is no other action. What are the messages for? Information 
> or warning? In my opinion, a test should print out as little as possible 
> unless an error occurs. (Sometimes "Testing XYZ..." is OK).
> 
>> - Moved GetInstanceTest.java into "sun/security/provider/SecureRandom" 
>> because it uses MoreDrbgParameters.
>>  - I am using default as well as custom entropy source just to make sure the 
>> extension works for getInstance() method.
>>  - Again, I use MoreDrbgParameter, just to make sure the instance of it can 
>> be acceptable by corresponding getInstance() method.
> 
> Well, I have a different opinion.
> 
> I think most of your tests should be categorized as functional (or 
> conformance) tests, so they should be focused on public APIs. In this case, 
> the test should set "securerandom.drbg.config" to Hash_DRBG/SHA-512 instead 
> of using MoreDrbgParameters to set algorithm to SHA-512.
> 
> In fact, there is no requirement that MoreDrbgParameters must be accepted by 
> getInstance().
> 
> MoreDrbgParameters and EntropySource are implementation details. Sometimes 
> they are necessary (For example, CAVP tests), but you'd better avoid touching 
> them. I did wrote some tests on them (DRBGAlg, AbstractDrbgSpec) in an 
> implementor's perspective but you can ignore them.
> 
>> - About SerializedSeedTest.java, I think the SHA1PRNG bug fix will get 
>> pushed to repo very soon. So the test is expected to work as the fix pushed 
>> into repo. But if you wish, I can change it accordingly.
> 
> Both the SHA1PRNG setSeed bug and the DRBG synchronization bug are already 
> fixed and pushed.
> 
> Thanks
> Max
> 
> 

Reply via email to