On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 19:21:07 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Properties files is essentially source code. It should have the same
>> whitespace checks as all other source code, so we don't get spurious
>> trailing whitespace changes.
>>
>> With the new Skara jcheck, it is possible to increas
> By moving the JFR event up to the java.security.cert.CertificateFactory
> class, we can record all generate cert events, including those from 3rd party
> providers. I've also altered the logic so that an event is genertate for
> every generate cert call (not just ones missing from the JDK prov
On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 19:21:07 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Properties files is essentially source code. It should have the same
>> whitespace checks as all other source code, so we don't get spurious
>> trailing whitespace changes.
>>
>> With the new Skara jcheck, it is possible to increas
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 13:44:09 GMT, Sean Coffey wrote:
>> By moving the JFR event up to the java.security.cert.CertificateFactory
>> class, we can record all generate cert events, including those from 3rd
>> party providers. I've also altered the logic so that an event is genertate
>> for every
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 13:51:06 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Sean Coffey has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
>>
>> - blessed modifiers
>> - Merge branch 'master' into 8292033-x509Event
>> - restore import sty
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 14:30:32 GMT, Sean Coffey wrote:
>> test/lib/jdk/test/lib/security/TestCertificate.java line 45:
>>
>>> 43: ONE("1000",
>>> 44: "CN=SSLCertificate,O=SomeCompany",
>>> 45: "CN=Intermediate CA Cert,O=SomeCompany",
>>
>> Why remove the spaces? `X500Name::toS
> By moving the JFR event up to the java.security.cert.CertificateFactory
> class, we can record all generate cert events, including those from 3rd party
> providers. I've also altered the logic so that an event is genertate for
> every generate cert call (not just ones missing from the JDK prov
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 14:34:26 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Code was modified to use the X509Certificate API (rather than X509CertImpl)
>>
>> it's using the X500Principal#getName() call now. Would it be better to use
>> X500Principal#toString() ?
>
> If you are only writing there and not parsing t
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293093
Mark Powers has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
add getIDNullSafe
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10823/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 15:57:56 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293093
>
> Mark Powers has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> add getIDNullSafe
looks good
-
Marked as reviewed by ascarpin
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 13:43:56 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> I wonder if this means even if we get everything right now the tool might add
> trailing spaces again later.
Good catch, Max. Yes, that should be dealt with in the translation process.
> I suggest we focus on the English files this time an
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 15:57:56 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293093
>
> Mark Powers has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> add getIDNullSafe
Thanks Tony!
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:49:49 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> add getIDNullSafe
>
> Thanks Tony!
@mcpowers Did you want to update line line 203-207 as well? It might be safe
to rem
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:56:10 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> Thanks Tony!
>
> @mcpowers Did you want to update line line 203-207 as well? It might be safe
> to remove the current getID(byte[]) method. If the parameter is null, there
> is an NPE (unexpected); otherwise, the new method should
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 15:57:56 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293093
>
> Mark Powers has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> add getIDNullSafe
Marked as reviewed by xuelei (Reviewer).
-
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:56:10 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> Thanks Tony!
>
> @mcpowers Did you want to update line line 203-207 as well? It might be safe
> to remove the current getID(byte[]) method. If the parameter is null, there
> is an NPE (unexpected); otherwise, the new method should
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 19:23:09 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> @mcpowers Did you want to update line line 203-207 as well? It might be
>> safe to remove the current getID(byte[]) method. If the parameter is null,
>> there is an NPE (unexpected); otherwise, the new method should be safe to
>>
When support for the Security Manager is removed, there would be little
benefit to keeping the permission checks inside the JDK, since it would
no longer be possible to set a Security Manager. Also, many APIs that
perform permission checks will likely be modified to no longer throw
SecurityExce
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 14:56:15 GMT, Sean Coffey wrote:
>> By moving the JFR event up to the java.security.cert.CertificateFactory
>> class, we can record all generate cert events, including those from 3rd
>> party providers. I've also altered the logic so that an event is genertate
>> for every
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:11:33 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
> I think this will miss cases where the certificates are part of a chain, and
> the application (or JDK code) is calling
> `CertificateFactory.generateCertPath` or `generateCertificates`, whereas the
> previous code would not have missed it
On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 22:09:29 GMT, vpaprotsk wrote:
>> Handcrafted x86_64 asm for Poly1305. Main optimization is to process 16
>> message blocks at a time. For more details, left a lot of comments in
>> `macroAssembler_x86_poly.cpp`.
>>
>> - Added new KAT test for Poly1305 and a fuzz test to co
On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 22:09:29 GMT, vpaprotsk wrote:
>> Handcrafted x86_64 asm for Poly1305. Main optimization is to process 16
>> message blocks at a time. For more details, left a lot of comments in
>> `macroAssembler_x86_poly.cpp`.
>>
>> - Added new KAT test for Poly1305 and a fuzz test to co
Hi Sean,
I would be quite willing to undertake the work.
We have a decision to make based on when & how SM will be removed, for
obvious reasons, this decision will be delayed as long as possible:
1. Pull the plug on our existing Java software development efforts,
currently our software dep
On 26/10/2022 02:58, Peter Firmstone wrote:
:
Using the existing permission check hooks in the JDK allows us to
significantly speed up our development efforts. Each time a
permission check hook is removed, we will need to replace it with
instrumentation. I was hoping this could be done in
24 matches
Mail list logo
