Hi, On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:08 PM Xuelei Fan <xuelei....@oracle.com> wrote: > Would you mind look at the code I posted in the following thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2018-July/017708.html
JDK 11+21: 1. client.closeOutbound() then goes into NEED_WRAP. 2. Client wraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into NOT_HANDSHAKING (?) 3. Server unwraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into NEED_WRAP. 4. Server wraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into NOT_HANDSHAKING. 5. Client unwraps 0 bytes (?) Current jdk11 tip with your patch: 1. client.closeOutbound() then goes into NEED_WRAP. 2. Client wraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into NEED_UNWRAP. 3. Server unwraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into NEED_WRAP. 4. Server wraps 0 bytes and stays in NEED_WRAP (?) I don't think this is right. While I previously complained about step 2 going into NOT_HANDSHAKING, if you now support full half close, then I think this may be reasonable, as the server may still send data and only later issue a close_notify. However, NEED_UNWRAP like it is now is also reasonable. At step 3, after the server unwraps the close_notify, the server should either stay in NOT_HANDSHAKING *and* require a call to closeOutbound() (which will move the state to NEED_WRAP), or it should go into NEED_WRAP *and* produce the close_notify. As it is now, SSLEngine tells the application to wrap(), but it wraps 0 bytes, but tells again the application to wrap(), but still produces 0 bytes, so it's going to be a tight spin loop - not good. Thanks! -- Simone Bordet --- Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are, to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability, the implementation technique must be flawless. Victoria Livschitz
