On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:14:38 GMT, Anthony Scarpino
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need a review to change the a fragment buffer size miscalculation error.
>> This appears when there are large handshake messages and hasn't been
>> observed during application data. This was found during testing of th
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:14:38 GMT, Anthony Scarpino
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need a review to change the a fragment buffer size miscalculation error.
>> This appears when there are large handshake messages and hasn't been
>> observed during application data. This was found during testing of th
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:50:20 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [f101e153](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/f101e153cee68750fcf1f12da10e29806875b522)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
> The com
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:14:38 GMT, Anthony Scarpino
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need a review to change the a fragment buffer size miscalculation error.
>> This appears when there are large handshake messages and hasn't been
>> observed during application data. This was found during testing of th
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:50:20 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [f101e153](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/f101e153cee68750fcf1f12da10e29806875b522)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
> The com
Hi all,
This pull request contains a backport of commit
[f101e153](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/f101e153cee68750fcf1f12da10e29806875b522)
from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
Thanks!
-
Commit messages:
- Backport f101e153cee68750fcf1f12da10e298
> Hi,
>
> I need a review to change the a fragment buffer size miscalculation error.
> This appears when there are large handshake messages and hasn't been observed
> during application data. This was found during testing of the
> NewSessionTicket change in
> [JDK-8328608](https://bugs.open
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:23:04 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
> This fix recovers XDH performance but removes some of the P256 gains
> (~-8-14%). Still faster, but not as much.
>
> The fix is to undo 'int' return type on mult()/square(), which allowed to
> return partially reduced result (e.g.
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:31:09 GMT, Ferenc Rakoczi wrote:
>> Hi @vpaprotsk,
>> @ferakocz is going to take a look at the change. When he says it's ok, I'll
>> approve the PR.
>
> @ascarpino please approve this change.
Thanks @ferakocz @ascarpino
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.or
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:38:55 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> This fix recovers XDH performance but removes some of the P256 gains
>> (~-8-14%). Still faster, but not as much.
>>
>> The fix is to undo 'int' return type on mult()/square(), which allowed to
>> return partially reduced result (
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:44:00 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>> I tried this and it caused a lockup in one of the tests. I see why your
>> think this is the right change, but it isn't proving out in the testing
>
> That's very interesting! Which test was it? Was it with or without #19465?
I do run
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:26:40 GMT, Anthony Scarpino
wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/SSLSocketOutputRecord.java line
>> 171:
>>
>>> 169: for (int limit = (offset + length); offset < limit;) {
>>> 170:
>>> 171: int remains = (limit - offset) + (
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:14:10 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need a review to change the a fragment buffer size miscalculation error.
>> This appears when there are large handshake messages and hasn't been
>> observed during application data. This was found during testing of the
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:11:34 GMT, Rajan Halade wrote:
>> Updated all the tests that depend on external infrastructure services as
>> manual. These tests may fail with external reasons, for instance - change in
>> CA test portal, certificate status updates, or network issues.
>
> Rajan Halade ha
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:38:55 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> This fix recovers XDH performance but removes some of the P256 gains
>> (~-8-14%). Still faster, but not as much.
>>
>> The fix is to undo 'int' return type on mult()/square(), which allowed to
>> return partially reduced result (
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:21:37 GMT, Anthony Scarpino
wrote:
>>> What causes regression in P256 "(~-8-14%)"? From what I see, you
>>> re-arranged code to not execute some code ("reducePositive()") when it is
>>> not needed. How this affects P256?
>>
>> Actually, the other way around; reducePosit
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 02:57:41 GMT, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need a review for this simple change to fix a threading problem with the
> test. The server thread was not completing before the check occurred on the
> main thread. The failure showed up in windows and macos, but not linux.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 15:32:15 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
> Added links from the `PSSParameterSpec` API to new section in Standard
> Algorithm Names specification for PSSParameterSpec (changes for that are in
> closed repo). Also made a couple of links to the Standard Algorithm Names
> specificatio
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:03:43 GMT, Anthony Scarpino
wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> This change is to improve TLS 1.3 session resumption by allowing a TLS
>> server to send more than one resumption ticket per connection and clients to
>> store more. Resumption is a quick way to use an existing TLS session
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:57:57 GMT, Anthony Scarpino
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need a review to change the a fragment buffer size miscalculation error.
> This appears when there are large handshake messages and hasn't been observed
> during application data. This was found during testing of the
>
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:57:57 GMT, Anthony Scarpino
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need a review to change the a fragment buffer size miscalculation error.
> This appears when there are large handshake messages and hasn't been observed
> during application data. This was found during testing of the
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
