Hi all,
This pull request contains a backport of
[JDK-8309088](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8309088), commit
[4c2e54fb](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/4c2e54fb055bee0af5cd838fdd32a0f7902d51e3)
from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
The commit being backpo
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 07:22:47 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
> The issue linked to ProblemList entry was closed as duplicate of
> [JDK-8307185](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8307185), which was fixed.
> The ProblemList entry should be removed.
>
> No failures in 30 test runs. Output of `-Xche
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:03:22 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
> I think @jnimeh should review this, as I think these methods were added when
> implementing OCSP Stapling, and it would be good for him to make sure they
> are no longer needed..
@jnimeh Did you have a chance to have a look at this update?
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 04:00:21 GMT, John Jiang wrote:
> if ((nextByte == DerValue.tag_SequenceOf)
> && (! ((nextByte & 0x0c0) == 0x080))) {
> ...
> ...
> }
>
> If `nextByte` is `DerValue.tag_SequenceOf`, exactly `0x30`, then the test
> after `&&` should always be true.
This pull
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 21:08:49 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8312461
I was able to reproduce the problem with mach5 and verify that the WARNING was
gone after the fix. The hardest thing about this bug was figuring out how to
set `-Xcheck:jni` on the mach5 command l
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8312461
-
Commit messages:
- Merge
- first iteration
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15113/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=15113&range=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8312461
Stats: 5 lines in 1
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:22:48 GMT, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
>> if ((nextByte == DerValue.tag_SequenceOf)
>> && (! ((nextByte & 0x0c0) == 0x080))) {
>> ...
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> If `nextByte` is `DerValue.tag_SequenceOf`, exactly `0x30`, then the test
>> after `&&` should always be true.
>
>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 04:00:21 GMT, John Jiang wrote:
> if ((nextByte == DerValue.tag_SequenceOf)
> && (! ((nextByte & 0x0c0) == 0x080))) {
> ...
> ...
> }
>
> If `nextByte` is `DerValue.tag_SequenceOf`, exactly `0x30`, then the test
> after `&&` should always be true.
The change
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 04:00:21 GMT, John Jiang wrote:
> if ((nextByte == DerValue.tag_SequenceOf)
> && (! ((nextByte & 0x0c0) == 0x080))) {
> ...
> ...
> }
>
> If `nextByte` is `DerValue.tag_SequenceOf`, exactly `0x30`, then the test
> after `&&` should always be true.
Could this
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 07:22:47 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
> The issue linked to ProblemList entry was closed as duplicate of
> [JDK-8307185](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8307185), which was fixed.
> The ProblemList entry should be removed.
>
> No failures in 30 test runs. Output of `-Xche
> Please review this PR to use modern APIs and language features to simplify
> `equals` and `hashCode` in security area.
>
> I understand that security area is sensitive and a non-expert, such as
> myself, should tread carefully; so below are my notes to assist the review.
>
> * Unlike `hashCod
The issue linked to ProblemList entry was closed as duplicate of
[JDK-8307185](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8307185), which was fixed.
The ProblemList entry should be removed.
No failures in 30 test runs. Output of `-Xcheck:jni` clean.
-
Commit messages:
- Remove test from
12 matches
Mail list logo
