On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 1:39 AM Xuelei Fan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 6:45 PM Martin Balao wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:38 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Not to mention the performance impact.
>>
>> I am not sure if you mean the performance impact of having to make sur
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 8:26 PM Xuelei Fan wrote:
>
>
> > I have to disable this feature, and don’t allow any security property
>> setting, which is not easy to me once an editable property is introduced.
>>
>> No need for this, the filter is disabled by default. If you are so
>> concerned that y
>
>
> Hi @XueleiFan,
>
> > I did not see the benefit of the proposal yet, except the troublesome I
> have to handle with in practice.
>
> The benefit is the removal of the limitation described in the [section
> **What is the current limitation?** of the JBS enhancement issue](
> https://bugs.openjd
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:38 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> Not to mention the performance impact.
I am not sure if you mean the performance impact of having to make sure that
the Filter is not set, or the performance impact of having the Filter disabled.
For the latter, there won't be any i
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:35:38 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> Martin Balao has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains one additional
>> co
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:57:02 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> In addition to the goals, scope, motivation, specification and requirement
>> notes in [JDK-8315487](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315487), we
>> would like to describe the most relevant decisions taken during the
>> implementatio
Oh, your testing is checking service type Cipher which is Java SE service.
It is not the case we discussed in the context: non-Java SE service types.
Xuelei
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 2:47 PM Martin Balao wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:13:09 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I meant
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:15:11 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [fd0207d5](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/fd0207d59309ae1af9539580f5bfcbc7627789cb)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
> The commit being
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 21:24:16 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> Then, please redefine the scope and purpose of this feature. It is just a
> part of the solution. Xuelei
I see it differently. It's a solution for the problem that we think it is worth
addressing from the JDK/JCA perspective. It's n
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:13:09 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> Sorry, I meant BCFIPS provider as linked in the URL I provided. Which may not
> be able to use putService as it needs to support back to Java 1.5, IIRC.
> Xuelei
BCFIPS works too (tested on `bc-fips-2.0.0.jar`). In this case, the fi
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:57:02 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> In addition to the goals, scope, motivation, specification and requirement
>> notes in [JDK-8315487](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315487), we
>> would like to describe the most relevant decisions taken during the
>> implementatio
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 04:14:22 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> We would like to propose an implementation of the HKDF algorithms for
>> SunPKCS11, aligned with the KDF API proposed for JDK 24 (see [JEP 478: Key
>> Derivation Function API
>> (Preview)](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8189808)).
>
Let’s simplify the discussion. Just one question, is the filter able to
filter out FIPS unapproved crypto algorithms and parameters form a provide?
If the answer is yes, I will support this proposal and you take any
possible action to make it. If the answer is no, I will stop to discuss as
well a
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:57:02 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> In addition to the goals, scope, motivation, specification and requirement
>> notes in [JDK-8315487](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315487), we
>> would like to describe the most relevant decisions taken during the
>> implementatio
> In addition to the goals, scope, motivation, specification and requirement
> notes in [JDK-8315487](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315487), we would
> like to describe the most relevant decisions taken during the implementation
> of this enhancement. These notes are organized by feature,
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:15:11 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [fd0207d5](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/fd0207d59309ae1af9539580f5bfcbc7627789cb)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
> The commit being
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 02:50:21 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> I agree that this proposal cannot solve all situation. But can it address the
> situations that FIPS approval can be granted? Otherwise, this proposal might
> just look great but no one can use it.
@martinuy mostly answered your que
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 07:18:02 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> > It's only the combination of a Provider that overrides
> > getService/getServices + does not call putService/put + overrides
> > newInstance without calling its parent + uses a non-Java SE service type
> > that would be unfiltered
clang-18.1.8-1.fc40.x86_64
Fedora 40 x86_64
fbd76ca8edd756ff2ebbc9f6477cc1a827df67b0
src/java.desktop/unix/native/libawt_xawt/xawt/XToolkit.c:695:9: error: ignoring
return value of function declared with 'warn_unused_result' attribute
[-Werror,-Wunused-result]
695 | write ( AWT_WRITEPIPE, &wa
On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 19:56:07 GMT, Martin Balao wrote:
>> In addition to the goals, scope, motivation, specification and requirement
>> notes in [JDK-8315487](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315487), we
>> would like to describe the most relevant decisions taken during the
>> implementation
20 matches
Mail list logo
