Yes, it can be quite a confusing scenario. Some algorithms have multiple
oids (say X) and multiple algorithm names (say Y). We need to be able to
handle all of them (X+Y). However, the separation of alias definition
for OidString and SecurityProviderConstants are intentional and I have
them separated with the reason below:
The aliases in OidString can be viewed as internal, e.g. from JCA
classes and used by AlgorithmId class and its regression tests. All of
the supported oids (X of them) have to have an OidString enum type as
their usage may be present in the DER encoding and all internal classes
need to handle it. As for the multiple algorithm names, supposedly,
there is only one standard name and the rest are all aliases. Aliases
can be used to request the impl from provider, but that's all. Internal
classes do not need to understand these external/provider-related
aliases. By separating these external aliases inside
SecurityProviderConstants, it is clear that these aliases are for
providers only.
StdName itself should not be its aliases. Which line in
SecurityProviderConstants class has this problem?
Thanks,
Valerie
On 4/25/2020 7:46 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
And I am confused by aliases in SecurityProviderConstants, together with the
duplicated stdName in OidString, it seems to show that one OID could have
multiple names, and one name could have multiple OIDs. Can we consolidate
aliases inside OidString also?
Also, looking at the store() calls in SecurityProviderConstants, it looks like
a stdName itself is one of its aliases. Is this really useful? From what I read
in the provider classes, you are adding ServiceKeys based on these aliases to a
serviceMap which already has a ServiceKey based on stdName.
Thanks,
Max
On Apr 25, 2020, at 6:28 PM, Weijun Wang <weijun.w...@oracle.com> wrote:
OidString.java
==============
1. ExtendedKeyUsage names: used to be "serverAuth", now "ServerAuth". First
letter capitalized, is this necessary?
2. Can we move name2oidStr() from OidString to AlgorithmId? The computeOidTable
process looks like an alien.
3. Two questions on the following lines:
415 // set extra alias mappings or specify the preferred one when
416 // one standard name maps to multiple enums
417 // NOTE: key must use UPPER CASE
418 name2enum.put("SHA1", SHA_1);
419 name2enum.put("SHA", SHA_1);
420 name2enum.put("SHA224", SHA_224);
421 name2enum.put("SHA256", SHA_256);
422 name2enum.put("SHA384", SHA_384);
423 name2enum.put("SHA512", SHA_512);
424 name2enum.put("SHA512/224", SHA_512$224);
425 name2enum.put("SHA512/256", SHA_512$256);
426 name2enum.put("DH", DiffieHellman);
427 name2enum.put("DSS", SHA1withDSA);
428 name2enum.put("RSA", RSA);
a) For line 428, is this because both RSA and ITUX509_RSA have the same stdName and you are setting the
preferred one? However, I can see that "DiffieHellman", "DSA", and
"SHA1withDSA" also appear in multiple places. Do they need special attention?
b) For the other lines, can we make this info somewhere inside the
constructor? After all our goal is to consolidate all info in one single place,
and a single line is better than a single file, esp, a very big file.
4. Are you sure the OID <-> name mapping is always the same everywhere (for all
primitives and in all providers)? I mean for a stdName, if one OID alias is added in
one place, should it always be added the same way in another? Have you compared the
aliases map after this change?
5. I found KnownOIDs to be a better class name.
AlgorithmId.java
================
There are still many lines like
public static final ObjectIdentifier MD2_oid = algOID(OidString.MD2);
here. Can they be eliminated? I use IntelliJ IDEA to find their usages and most
are used in only one place and some are not used at all.
I haven't read other files yet. Will send more comment later.
Thanks,
Max
On Apr 24, 2020, at 7:11 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi Max,
Would you have time to review this change? The current webrev attempts to cover
all security classes where hard-coded oid strings and consolidate these known
oid string values into a single enum type. The changes are quite extensive, I
can trim back and only cover the provider algorithm oids if you prefer. There
are pros and cons for both approach.
I know that the naming convention is to use all upper case for enum constants,
but choose to use the same naming convention as standard names to simplify the
code. SecurityProviderConstants class defines the common mappings which are
general to providers. Provider-specific alias mappings are handled in specific
provider class, e.g. SunJSSE class.
RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242151
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8242151/webrev.00/
Mach5 runs clean.
Valerie
