Looks good, just a couple of minor comments on the test:
* test/jdk/java/security/SecureRandom/DefaultAlgo.java
75 Objects.requireNonNull(p);
Not sure why you need this line, since the test never passes null.
90 validate(new SecureRandom(), pName, algos[0]);
Is there a reason why you don't call removeService for each algorithm
when testing the non-legacy provider?
--Sean
On 6/9/20 12:52 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
Thanks for review~
As for the isProviderInfo() name, since I reverted the code for its impl
to pre-7092821, I changed it back to the old name as you noticed. Sean
mentioned that he also wants to take a look at this updated webrev, so I
will wait for him to do that...
Valerie
On 6/8/2020 6:11 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
Code change looks fine to me.
I re-look at every place where legacyStrings and prngAlgorithms are
used and they are all synchronized. Last time I thought some were not.
Sorry.
Only one comment: I like the isProviderInfo() name better, but I
notice it was the old name pre-7092821.
Thanks,
Max
On Jun 9, 2020, at 6:31 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com>
wrote:
Webrev updated: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8246613/webrev.02/
Besides addressing Max's comments, I also made
updateSecureRandomEntries(...) method private and removed the
synchronized keyword as all of its accesses are synchronized.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 6/8/2020 2:33 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
Hi Max,
Please find comments in line.
On 6/8/2020 2:34 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
Looks like this should work, but still find it complicated.
1. Do we need to care about thread safety when managing legacyStrings?
Right, it's more complicated than I like as well.
As for thread safety, the legacy relevant data are all synchronized
under the current provider object, i.e. this. Is there a particular
call path not doing this? This is the same as the pre-7092821 code.
2. Does implReplaceAll() need to set legacyChanged = true?
Correct, the removal is by accident. Thanks for catching this.
3. How about using prngAlgorithms.iterator().next() below?
1416 return prngAlgorithms.toArray(new String[0])[0];
Sure, changed.
Valerie
--Max
On Jun 6, 2020, at 11:54 AM, Valerie Peng
<valerie.p...@oracle.com> wrote:
Thanks for reviewing and sharing the feedbacks on webrev.00.
In order to support all existing calls for legacy registration for
default secure random, I have to revert some of the JDK-7092821
changes and re-introduce the 'legacyStrings' LinkedHashMap.
Updated the regression test with removal test for provider using
legacy registrations as well. Although removal is supported, this
is still not bullet proof as things may not work as expected if a
provider registered their impl in both ways, i.e. legacy String
pair and Service, and then remove/replace some entries later.
Please comment if you really need this scenario to be supported.
Although not explicitly documented, I think the intention is to
use one or the other, never both.
Webrev update:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8246613/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Valerie
On 6/5/2020 11:00 AM, Valerie Peng wrote:
Right, I try to keep the impl simple as I am not aware of any
property removal usage.
Oh-well, if we have to cater to the removal scenario, then we'd
have to add a List and keep track of ALL secure random algos
instead of only the FIRST one. Alright, I guess it costs for
covering all aspect. But one extra benefit of this is that it
should be easy to handle the future JDK property such as
"jdk.securerandom.disabledAlgorithms" if it were to be added.
Valerie
On 6/5/2020 7:54 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
I don't know who in this world would want to do that, but
Prasad's concern is technically possible. I tried
'p.remove("SecureRandom.a")' in the new test, and new
SecureRandom() fails with
"java.security.NoSuchAlgorithmException: a SecureRandom not
available".
And people can also remove one entry and add it back in order to
move it to the end. One can even add new implementations this way.
Unfortunately there is no ConcurrentLinkedHashMap.
--Max
On Jun 5, 2020, at 1:44 PM, Prasadrao Koppula
<prasadarao.kopp...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi,
Looks good to me, one question
If first registered SecureRandom algo gets removed,
getDefaultSecureRandomAlgorithm return stale data, a refresh
required in remove?
Thanks,
Prasad.K
-----Original Message-----
From: Valerie Peng
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 2:52 AM
To: security-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: [15] RFR JDK-8246613: Choose the default
SecureRandom algo
based on registration ordering
Hi, Sean,
Thanks for the review and feedback. Webrev updated:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8246613/webrev.01/
getTypeAndAlgorithm(...) was not static due to an instance
variable used by
debugging output. I have removed it and made both method static.
I will wait for others' review comments also.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 6/4/2020 2:01 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
On 6/4/20 3:34 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
Hi,
Could someone help reviewing this fix? This change keep
tracks of the
first registered SecureRandom algorithm and returns it upon the
request of SecureRandom class.
This looks good to me. I would recommend that Max or someone
else
review it as well.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8246613
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8246613/webrev.00/
A couple of minor comments, feel free to fix or ignore.
* SecureRandom.java
879 // For SUN provider, we use
SunEntries.DEFF_SECURE_RANDOM_ALGO
Might as well fix the typo while you are in there: s/DEFF/DEF/
* Provider.java
1156 private String parseSecureRandomPut(String name, String
value) {
Could be static if you also make getTypeAndAlgorithm static,
I think.
--Sean
