On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 05:03:15 GMT, Timofei Fedotov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> DTLSReassembler can queue fragments of the same handshake message with >> different total messageLength values. Reassembly holes are initialized from >> the first fragment, while the output array is allocated using the fragment >> with the lowest offset. >> >> For the same epoch, message sequence, and HELLO_REQUEST type, submit these >> fragments in order: >> offset 5, length 50, total message length 100; >> offset 0, length 5, total message length 10; >> offset 55, length 45, total message length 100. >> >> The final fragment completes the holes, but copying the buffered fragments >> into the array sized for a ten-byte message triggers >> ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException. SSLEngineImpl catches this runtime exception >> and reports a fatal SSLException; it does not establish a JVM crash. >> >> Expected behavior the inconsistent handshake metadata must be rejected as a >> protocol error before fragment reassembly. >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Timofei Fedotov has updated the pull request incrementally with two > additional commits since the last revision: > > - Add number of bug in test > - Add test test/jdk/javax/net/ssl/DTLS/InconsistentFragmentLength.java line 38: > 36: static ByteBuffer record(int sequence, int length, int offset, int > size) { > 37: var b = ByteBuffer.allocate(25 + size); > 38: > b.put((byte)22).put((byte)0xfe).put((byte)0xfd).putShort((short)0); Can you add comments explaining the bytes you put in the buffer? The are pretty obvious when reading this code with a RFC in hand, but it would be better if the code was self-evident. test/jdk/javax/net/ssl/DTLS/InconsistentFragmentLength.java line 59: > 57: > 58: public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { > 59: var engine = engine(); var app = ByteBuffer.allocate(65536); Suggestion: var engine = engine(); var app = ByteBuffer.allocate(65536); ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33633#discussion_r4421794741 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33633#discussion_r4421829291
