On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:27:27 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Seems so. BTW, I was using a test-driven programming model and have not
>> observed a leak here. I'll see if I can trigger one.
>
> Sounds good. Rest of changes look fine.
I cannot reproduce this leak, but I found more by mixing the calls
Could you please review the changes?
This patch is to address :
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8215916?jql=labels%20%3D%20starter-bug
-
Commit messages:
- 8215916: Print out more information as a part of failure reason of an
optional JAAS LoginModule
Changes: https://git.open
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 16:05:38 GMT, Ryan Ernst wrote:
> Applied required casts in jdk.crypto.ec for the upcoming warning.
> Verified by cherry-picking @asotona's patch.
Marked as reviewed by xuelei (Reviewer).
src/jdk.crypto.ec/share/classes/sun/security/ec/XDHPublicKeyImpl.java line 79:
> 77:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 14:53:51 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> At the beginning, this bug was about the incorrect warning message
> "Unsupported authentication scheme" on line 1051 which should have been "This
> key algorithm has been checked, skip it".
>
> Now, it's a code refactoring that emphasizes
Am 21.06.2022 um 09:32 schrieb Andrew Haley:
On 6/16/22 21:02, Lothar Kimmeringer wrote:
If they are allowed to become unuseable (as explained, I see that as
something that is to be expected IRL)
I don't think they are. There is nothing in PKCS#11 that gives an implementation
any permission
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 16:09:41 GMT, Ryan Ernst wrote:
> Applied required casts in java.security.jgss for the upcoming warning.
> Verified by cherry-picking @asotona's patch.
Looks reasonable to me - but it we be good to have someone from security-dev
take a look.
-
PR: https://git.o
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 16:05:38 GMT, Ryan Ernst wrote:
> Applied required casts in jdk.crypto.ec for the upcoming warning.
> Verified by cherry-picking @asotona's patch.
Looks reasonable to me - but it would be good to have someone from
security-dev take a look.
-
PR: https://git.op
On 6/16/22 21:02, Lothar Kimmeringer wrote:
If they are allowed to become unuseable (as explained, I see that as
something that is to be expected IRL)
I don't think they are. There is nothing in PKCS#11 that gives an implementation
any permission to time out.
--
Andrew Haley (he/him)
Java Pla
Thanks Jaikiran. Since RFC 7250 &7685 are unsupported, this isn't
particularly significant. (I discovered whilst looking for raw public key
support.)
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 07:51, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>
> On 20/06/22 9:05 pm, Ben Smyth wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 17:00, xueleifan(XueleiFan)
