Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8206925/webrev.01/
On 5/12/2020 12:40 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
On 5/5/20 2:29 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Hi,
Could I get the following update reviewed?
RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8206925
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244441
We have previously used the syntax "enable[Extension]" when naming
system properties that enable optional extensions. Thus, it seems this
name would be more consistent:
"jdk.tls.client.enableCertificateAuthoritiesExtension"
However, it is a bit long, so maybe we could abbreviate it to CA:
"jdk.tls.client.enableCAExtension"
"enableCAExtension" looks fine, but it is not as instinctive as
"indicateCertificateAuthorities".
We used to use "enableXXExtension" because normally there is only one
behavior for the extension. However, for the Certificate Authorities
extension, it could be requested by server side to indicate client cert
selection, or by client side to indicate server cert selection. It is
not straightforward to know if "enableCAExtension" means accepting
server request, or produce client request.
It is not expected to use this extension regularly.
Please let me know if you still prefer to use "enableCAExtension".
Also, it is a bit unfortunate that we have to have a system property to
enable it. Can we not enable it based on whether the configured
X509TrustManager.getAcceptedIssuers returns a non-empty list?
We can do that on server side, but there are compatibility impact on
client behavior if we did it in client side. See #2 in the
"Specification" section.
Release-note: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244460
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8206925/webrev.00/
* src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/CertificateRequest.java
Missing copyright update.
* src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/SSLExtension.java
748 // Switch on certificate_authorities extention in
ClientHello?
typo: s/extention/extension
Is the '?' at the end intentional or a typo?
Updated.
*
src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/CertificateAuthoritiesExtension.java
70 if (!authorities.contains(encodedPrincipal)) {
71 authorities.add(encodedPrincipal);
72 }
Is it really necessary to remove duplicates? Seems kind of expensive to
iterate over the list every single time for what should be a rare case.
Good point! Update here, and revert the update for
CertificateRequest.java as well.
108 X500Principal[] getAuthorities() {
Here you know the size of the array up front so you could avoid using a
List and populate the array directly.
Good catch!
* test/jdk/sun/security/ssl/X509KeyManager/CertificateAuthorities.java
The test doesn't seem to do much, other than make sure you can make a
connection if the extension is enabled. Can you test the scenario below
where you can show that the extension addresses the issue where the
certificate selected may not be the one the peer can accept?
With this update, the certificate selected must be the one the peer can
accept. It may be helpful to add test cases to make sure the connection
is terminated if no certification can be selected. I will try to add
more test cases.
Thanks,
Xuelei
--Sean
The "certificate_authorities" extension is an optional extension
introduced in TLS 1.3 and used to indicate the certificate authorities
(CAs) which an endpoint supports and which SHOULD be used by the
receiving endpoint to guide certificate selection.
In TLS 1.2, this function is built in the CertificateRequest handshake
massage.
This function is supported in TLS 1.2 and prior versions. However, it
is not implemented in the TLS 1.3 implementation. Without this
function, the authentication certificate selected may be not the one
the peer could accepted, when there are multiple certificates available.
Thanks,
Xuelei
