RSAPrivateKeyImpl and RSAPrivateCrtKeyImpl - throws InvalidKeyException when RSAUtil.createAlgorithmId(type, keyParams) fails. I'll keep it.
EdDSAPrivateKeyImpl, XDHPrivateKeyImpl and ECPrivateKeyImpl - check the input ECParameterSpec params and might throw an InvalidKeyException. I'll keep it. Some of these constructors now throws ProviderException or InvalidKeyException when DER encoding goes wrong. This should never happen, and I'll throw AssertionError for it. In short, the only possible exception is now InvalidKeyException. I also throw AssertionError but it's not possible and definitely means a programming error somewhere (Ex: DerValue::putInteger goes wrong). So here is the updated webrev http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8244565/webrev.04/ Thanks, Max > On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:37 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi, Max, > > Overall looks very good. Just one more thing: > > Different key classes seems to differ in their handling of IOException in > their constructor which produces the DER bytes. > > DSAPrivateKey changed to use AssertionError, XDHPrivateKeyImpl and > EdDSAPrivateKeyImpl throws ProviderException. It seems that all other > PrivateKey classes use InvalidKeyException. Perhaps it'd be nice to use > InvalidKeyException for consistency sake? > > Thanks, > Valerie > On 6/1/2020 12:35 AM, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Updated webrev at >> >> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8244565/webrev.03. >> >> I've inlined more methods that is only called once and inside the same >> method. >> >> Thanks, >> Max >> >> >>> On May 28, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Weijun Wang <weijun.w...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 28, 2020, at 8:46 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Max, >>>> >>>> I like this new structure better. Much easier to understand. Most of the >>>> changes are technical debt that's accumulated inside PKCS8Key class. >>>> >>>> A few notable differences which I am not so sure about are >>>> >>>> - the encodedKey is returned by getEncoded() directly w/o cloning, and >>> Too bad. I'll fix. >>> >>>> - the protected parseKeyBits() method being made private. I wonder if the >>>> parseKeyBits() method should be made abstract so it's more obvious that >>>> the subclasses needs to parse the key bytes into algorithm-specific >>>> components. >>> Or how about I just inline parseKeyBits in those child classes into their >>> constructors? I don't think the child class will forget it. Otherwise, why >>> write a child class? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Max >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Valerie >>>> On 5/26/2020 5:54 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>>>> Can you please take a look (not a review) at an updated webrev at >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8244565/webrev.02/? It contains the >>>>> code to inspect the extra fields. I haven't deal with the "..." here yet. >>>>> >>>>> However, when I tried to consolidate the DER parsing into one place, I've >>>>> made more and more changes everywhere. The major change now is a base >>>>> constructor PKCS8Key(byte[]) and subclass constructors that call it and >>>>> no more protected parseKeyBits(). Although I don't think there is any >>>>> technical error here but at the end of the day I'm asking myself if this >>>>> is too much code change for such a simple bug. >>>>> >>>>> Do you like the overall structure? If yes, I'll continue this way. >>>>> Otherwise, I can restrict the change only inside PKCS8Key. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Max >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 27, 2020, at 7:14 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose we can allow trailing data to conform to "..." then. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the "[[2: publicKey [1] PublicKey OPTIONAL ]]," line mean that the >>>>>> publicKey should not be present for V1? This should be checked? >>>>>> >>>>>> Valerie >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/25/2020 9:02 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>>>>>> The new definition at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5958 shows, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OneAsymmetricKey ::= SEQUENCE { >>>>>>> version Version, >>>>>>> privateKeyAlgorithm PrivateKeyAlgorithmIdentifier, >>>>>>> privateKey PrivateKey, >>>>>>> attributes [0] Attributes OPTIONAL, >>>>>>> ..., >>>>>>> [[2: publicKey [1] PublicKey OPTIONAL ]], >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to >>>>>>> https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/what-does-string-three-elipses-mean-asn1: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The string "..." in ASN.1 is called an extension marker. The >>>>>>> extension marker, >>>>>>> ellipsis, is an indication that extension additions are expected. It >>>>>>> makes no >>>>>>> statement as to how such additions should be handled. However they >>>>>>> shall not be >>>>>>> treated as an error during the decoding process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So there might be more fields in the future. Do you still insist we >>>>>>> need more validation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Max >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 20, 2020, at 1:37 PM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True, the current handling of the extra bytes in parseKey() and >>>>>>>> decode() are kind of opposite, one does not allow any extra bytes but >>>>>>>> the other ignores all. The trailing bytes may look harmless but simply >>>>>>>> ignores it may open up something unexpected. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Given that this is key related class, I think it's important to do >>>>>>>> reasonable validation even though we currently do not use these >>>>>>>> trailing bytes. It'd also be good if the handling can be consistent >>>>>>>> regardless of the call path. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Valerie >>>>>>>> On 5/18/2020 9:36 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On May 19, 2020, at 1:41 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Max, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I saw in the bug description that handling and parsing of the public >>>>>>>>>> key will be resolved in a separate enhancement which is fine with me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In addition to relaxing the PKCS8 version check to accept 1, the >>>>>>>>>> current webrev does not check for the trailing bytes and its >>>>>>>>>> validity. Perhaps we should consider adding necessary checks to >>>>>>>>>> ensure spec conformance? Perhaps some utility method like: (This >>>>>>>>>> includes basic checks plus checks for multiple attributes and >>>>>>>>>> version 1 w/ public key. ) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> private static void checkTrailingBytes(DerInputStream derIn, int >>>>>>>>>> version) >>>>>>>>>> throws IOException { >>>>>>>>>> boolean hasAttributes = false; >>>>>>>>>> boolean hasPublicKey = false; >>>>>>>>>> while (derIn.available () != 0) { >>>>>>>>>> // check for OPTIONAL attributes and/or publicKey >>>>>>>>>> DerValue tmp = derIn.getDerValue(); >>>>>>>>>> if (tmp.isContextSpecific((byte)0) && !hasAttributes) { >>>>>>>>>> // OPTIONAL attributes not supported yet >>>>>>>>>> // discard for now and move on >>>>>>>>>> hasAttributes = true; >>>>>>>>>> } else if (version == V2 && >>>>>>>>>> tmp.isContextSpecific((byte)1) && >>>>>>>>>> !hasPublicKey) { >>>>>>>>>> // OPTIONAL v2 public key not supported yet >>>>>>>>>> // discard for now and move on >>>>>>>>>> hasPublicKey = true; >>>>>>>>>> } else { >>>>>>>>>> throw new IOException ("illegal encoding in private >>>>>>>>>> key"); >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> I wonder if this is necessary. The extra bytes are quite harmless, >>>>>>>>> and we didn't check it in decode(). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Besides the encoding parsing check above, maybe V1, V2 can be made >>>>>>>>>> private static? >>>>>>>>> OK. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I noticed that the PKCS8Key class has a block of code under the >>>>>>>>>> comments "Try again using JDK1.1-style...", however the provider >>>>>>>>>> property "PrivateKey.PKCS#8.<alg>" seems long gone? Without these >>>>>>>>>> property, this block of code seems useless and probably should be >>>>>>>>>> cleaned up as well. >>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As for the test, the existing comments for the EXPECTED bytes are >>>>>>>>>> off and plain misleading. Could you please fix them or at least >>>>>>>>>> remove them. For example, the comment of "integer 3" should be >>>>>>>>>> associated with "0x02, 0x01, 0x03," bytes instead of "0x01, 0x02, >>>>>>>>>> 0x02,". In the updated test, NEW_ENCODED_KEY_INTS is PKCS8 v1 key >>>>>>>>>> and NEW_ENCODED_KEY_INTS_2 is PKCS8 v2 key w/ public key. Since the >>>>>>>>>> version value is always at index 4, we can either clone the existing >>>>>>>>>> bytes or directly override the version value in NEW_ENCODED_KEY_INTS >>>>>>>>>> or NEW_ENCODED_KEY_INTS_2 to add additional negative tests, e.g. >>>>>>>>>> encoding w/ the version value 2 (anything besides the allowed 0 and >>>>>>>>>> 1), version value 0 w/ trailing public key. It'd be nice to test >>>>>>>>>> version 1 w/ trailing bytes w/ invalid tag value as well. >>>>>>>>> If you still want checkTrailingBytes, then yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Max >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Valerie >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2020 5:16 PM, Valerie Peng wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I will take a look. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Valerie >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2020 3:39 AM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Found an existing test I can update. Webrev updated at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8244565/webrev.01/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Max >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Weijun Wang <weijun.w...@oracle.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please take a review at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8244565/webrev.00/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we accepts a PKCS8 file with version being 0 or 1. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> publicKey and attributes are still not parsed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I also take this chance to make some format change. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no regression test and I'll add one. I can generate a >>>>>>>>>>>>> PKCS8 key and then modify the version from 0 to 1 and try to read >>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Or I can find a PKCS8 generated by some other tool and embed >>>>>>>>>>>>> it the test to read it. Please advise which is better. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Max >>>>>>>>>>>>>
