Hi Simone,
Thanks for the quick feedback. Read more in-lines, please.
On 7/31/2018 3:10 AM, Simone Bordet wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 11:39 AM Simone Bordet <simone.bor...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
For completeness, calling server.closeOutbound() at step 4. correctly
moves SSLEngine into NEED_WRAP and a subsequent wrap() produces the 24
bytes of the close_notify and result CLOSED, then goes into
NOT_HANDSHAKING.
I think the current behavior (with your patch) needs to be fixed.
Since you implemented half-close, my preference would be this:
1. client.closeOutbound() then goes into NEED_WRAP.
2. Client wraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into NOT_HANDSHAKING.
It might be a problem for application to make a right decision if using
CLOSED status and NOT_HANDSHAKING handshake status together.
As the write side is close, the client now only be able to receiving
data from peer. I think NEED_UNWRAP may be more appropriate for
application development.
However, the CLOSED status may be confusing as the client may still want
to read something later.
I may prefer to use OK/NEED_UNWRAP. What do you think?
3. Server unwraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into NOT_HANDSHAKING.
Same reason as above, I may prefer to use OK/NEED_WRAP.
4. server.closeOutbound() then goes into NEED_WRAP.
5. Server wraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into NOT_HANDSHAKING.
6. Client unwraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into NOT_HANDSHAKING.
Agreed.
If no objections, I will make the update:
1. client.closeOutbound() then goes into NEED_WRAP.
2. Client wraps 24 bytes, result is OK, then goes into NEED_UNWRAP.
3. Server unwraps 24 bytes, result is OK, then goes into NEED_WRAP.
4. server.closeOutbound() then goes into NEED_WRAP.
5. Server wraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into NOT_HANDSHAKING.
6. Client unwraps 24 bytes, result is CLOSED, then goes into
NOT_HANDSHAKING.
Thanks,
Xuelei
