On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 23:52:02 GMT, Weijun Wang <wei...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Inside JDK we support a lot of X.509 certificate extensions. Almost every
>> extension has a rule about what is legal or not. For example, the names in
>> `SubjectAlternativeNameExtension` cannot be missing or empty. Usually, a
>> rule is enforced in the `encode()` method, where the extension value is
>> assigned null for illegal extension and the method throws an `IOException`.
>> However, before the `encode()` method is called, the illegal extension can
>> always be created successfully, whether from a constructor using extension
>> components (For example, `new SubjectAlternativeNameExtension(names)`) or
>> using the encoded value (for example, `new
>> SubjectAlternativeNameExtension(derEncoding)`).
>>
>> This code change tries to prevent illegal extensions from being created
>> right from the beginning but the solution is not complete. Precisely, for
>> constructors using extension components, new checks are added to ensure the
>> correct components are provided and the extension can be encoded correctly.
>> Fortunately, most of these conditions are already met inside JDK calls to
>> them. The only exception is inside the `keytool -gencrl` command where the
>> reason code of a revoked certificate could be zero. This has been fixed in
>> this code change. There are some constructors having no arguments at all.
>> These are useless and also removed.
>>
>> On the other hand, constructors using the encoded value are complicated.
>> Some of them check for legal values, some do not. However, since the
>> encoding is read from the argument and already stored inside the object,
>> there is no need to calculate the encoding in the `encode()` method and this
>> method always succeed.
>>
>> In short, while we cannot ensure the extensions created are perfectly legal,
>> we ensure their `encode()` methods are always able to find a non-null
>> extension value to write out.
>>
>> More fine comments in the code change.
>
> Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> add test
>
> only in patch2:
> unchanged:
A couple of initial comments, will finish review later.
src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/x509/CRLReasonCodeExtension.java line
72:
> 70: *
> 71: * @param critical true if the extension is to be treated as critical.
> 72: * @param reason the enumerated value for the reason code, cannot be
> null.
s/null/0/
src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/x509/CRLReasonCodeExtension.java line
76:
> 74: public CRLReasonCodeExtension(boolean critical, int reason)
> 75: throws IOException {
> 76: if (reason == 0) {
Do you also want to reject reason codes < 0?
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11137
