On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 13:28:22 GMT, Andreas Chmielewski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think changing the `visibility` test to 480 is a good short-term fix. >> However, I don't think spawning 270 VMs is a good use of test resources for >> a single test. We need to keep in mind that these tests are run continuously >> by many developers. >> >> I'd suggest filing another issue and explore a couple of different ways to >> reduce the number of VMs: >> >> 1) you could reduce the number of VMs significantly by setting the >> `jdk.tls.disabledAlgorithms` property set to all of the cipher suites that >> are to be tested, and then test TLS with each cipher suite to ensure it is >> properly disabled. Though this would not give you the isolation that you >> have now, I think it would still catch the issue that caused this bug. >> >> 2) You could randomly select a subset of cipher suites to be tested, instead >> of all of them. And you could add a 3rd run option that would be a manual >> test which would run all of them. > > Thanks for your suggestions. I've also been thinking about ways to reduce the > number of spawned VMs. To be honest, I prefer the simple and isolated test > design used here. The goal is not only to test the specific code path that > caused this bug, but also to provide broader coverage of the feature's > behavior. > > My suggestion would be to get the short-term fix in first, and then I can > file a follow-up issue to explore a redesign of the test. I will take care of > that asap. I would suggest keeping just `handshake` test in this file and then test `SSLAlgorithmDecomposer` directly with a patch (so that would be a new test). This way everything can be done very fast and in the same VM. Please see examples of test patches here: test/jdk/sun/security/ssl/Stapling/java.base test/jdk/sun/security/tools/keytool/fakegen/java.base test/jdk/sun/security/util/module_patch/java.base test/jdk/sun/security/provider/SecureRandom/AbstractDrbg/java.base test/jdk/sun/security/provider/SecureRandom/java.base ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31812#discussion_r3552223631
