Re: RFR: JDK-8311644 Server should not send bad_certificate alert when the client does not send any certificates [v2]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:41:10 GMT, Anthony Scarpino wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I need a code review of what is really a text change. This changes the >> alert type returned during some TLS CertificateMessage failures to what is >> recommended in [RFC 8446](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446). An

Re: RFR: JDK-8311644 Server should not send bad_certificate alert when the client does not send any certificates [v2]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:41:10 GMT, Anthony Scarpino wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I need a code review of what is really a text change. This changes the >> alert type returned during some TLS CertificateMessage failures to what is >> recommended in [RFC 8446](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446). An

Re: RFR: JDK-8311644 Server should not send bad_certificate alert when the client does not send any certificates [v2]

> Hi, > > I need a code review of what is really a text change. This changes the alert > type returned during some TLS CertificateMessage failures to what is > recommended in [RFC 8446](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446). An > additional change was to add the alert description to the thrown

Re: RFR: JDK-8311644 Server should not send bad_certificate alert when the client does not send any certificates

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:32:17 GMT, John Jiang wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I need a code review of what is really a text change. This changes the >> alert type returned during some TLS CertificateMessage failures to what is >> recommended in [RFC 8446](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446). An >> addi

Re: RFR: JDK-8311644 Server should not send bad_certificate alert when the client does not send any certificates

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 06:44:30 GMT, Sibabrata Sahoo wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I need a code review of what is really a text change. This changes the >> alert type returned during some TLS CertificateMessage failures to what is >> recommended in [RFC 8446](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446). An >>

Re: RFR: JDK-8311644 Server should not send bad_certificate alert when the client does not send any certificates

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:09:40 GMT, John Jiang wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I need a code review of what is really a text change. This changes the >> alert type returned during some TLS CertificateMessage failures to what is >> recommended in [RFC 8446](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446). An >> addi

RFR: 8311002: missing @since info in 21 files in jdk.security.auth

Add `@since` info. JAAS was included in JDK 1.4 and these classes were all in the initial release. - Commit messages: - the fix Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17969/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=17969&range=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/b

RFR: 8311003: missing @since info in jdk.security.jgss

Add the `@since` info. Most of the classes were introduced in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-6710360. `GSSUtil.java` was there since the 1st batch of JGSS classes. - Commit messages: - the fix Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17968/files Webrev: https://webrevs.open

Re: RFR: 8319673: Few security tests ignore VM flags [v5]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 12:52:19 GMT, Matthew Donovan wrote: >> In this PR I updated the tests to use the newer >> ProcessTools.createTestJavaProcessBuilder() methods to launch child >> processes. This method ensures that VM options are passed to subprocesses. > > Matthew Donovan has updated the pu

Re: RFR: 8319673: Few security tests ignore VM flags [v5]

> In this PR I updated the tests to use the newer > ProcessTools.createTestJavaProcessBuilder() methods to launch child > processes. This method ensures that VM options are passed to subprocesses. Matthew Donovan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the la