Re: RFR: 8028127: Regtest java/security/Security/SynchronizedAccess.java is incorrect [v4]

2024-07-17 Thread Fernando Guallini
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 00:37:17 GMT, Bradford Wetmore wrote: >> Fernando Guallini 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 two additional >>

Re: RFR: 8336240: Test com/sun/crypto/provider/Cipher/DES/PerformanceTest.java fails with java.lang.ArithmeticException [v2]

2024-07-17 Thread Fernando Guallini
> The manual test Cipher/DES/PerformanceTest.java fails with > ArithmeticException due to potential division by zero. The issue arises when > calculating the elapsed time using end - start, which could result in zero > milliseconds if start and end are identical due to the high speed of > execu

Re: RFR: 8336240: Test com/sun/crypto/provider/Cipher/DES/PerformanceTest.java fails with java.lang.ArithmeticException [v2]

2024-07-17 Thread Fernando Guallini
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 09:36:28 GMT, Fernando Guallini wrote: >> test/jdk/com/sun/crypto/provider/Cipher/DES/PerformanceTest.java line 186: >> >>> 184: end = System.currentTimeMillis(); >>> 185: >>> 186: // To avoid diving by zero if end is equal to start >> >> Test is performing

Re: RFR: 8028127: Regtest java/security/Security/SynchronizedAccess.java is incorrect [v5]

2024-07-17 Thread Fernando Guallini
> As highlighted in the bug description, The test > **security/Security/SynchronizedAccess.java** have some issues: > > 1. it needs to implement the sigalg, otherwise it throws > java.security.NoSuchAlgorithmException . Even though it does not fail as it > catches the exception, it never reache

Re: RFR: 8336240: Test com/sun/crypto/provider/Cipher/DES/PerformanceTest.java fails with java.lang.ArithmeticException [v3]

2024-07-17 Thread Fernando Guallini
> The manual test Cipher/DES/PerformanceTest.java fails with > ArithmeticException due to potential division by zero. The issue arises when > calculating the elapsed time using end - start, which could result in zero > milliseconds if start and end are identical due to the high speed of > execu

Re: RFR: 8336499: Failure when creating non-CRT RSA private keys in SunPKCS11 [v2]

2024-07-17 Thread Martin Balao
> Hi, > > I'd like to make a proposal to fix > [JDK-8336499](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8336499). > > With the proposed change, a non-sensitive RSA private key is first > interpreted as a CRT key. If that fails (e.g. one of the attributes is not > available), a second attempt is made

Re: RFR: 8336499: Failure when creating non-CRT RSA private keys in SunPKCS11 [v2]

2024-07-17 Thread Martin Balao
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:32:09 GMT, Martin Balao wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to make a proposal to fix >> [JDK-8336499](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8336499). >> >> With the proposed change, a non-sensitive RSA private key is first >> interpreted as a CRT key. If that fails (e.g. one of

RFR: 8334772: Change Class::protectionDomain and signers to explicit fields

2024-07-17 Thread Chen Liang
Please review this change that moves `Class.protectionDomain` and `signers` to explicit fields. Related native methods in `Class` and `AccessController::getProtectionDomain` are converted to pure Java. These fields are still set and used by hotspot. Also fixes the incorrect `protectiondomain_si

Re: RFR: 8334772: Change Class::protectionDomain and signers to explicit fields

2024-07-17 Thread Alan Bateman
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:47:11 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: > Please review this change that moves `Class.protectionDomain` and `signers` > to explicit fields. > > Related native methods in `Class` and `AccessController::getProtectionDomain` > are converted to pure Java. These fields are still set and

Withdrawn: 8334772: Change Class::protectionDomain and signers to explicit fields

2024-07-17 Thread Chen Liang
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:47:11 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: > Please review this change that moves `Class.protectionDomain` and `signers` > to explicit fields. > > Related native methods in `Class` and `AccessController::getProtectionDomain` > are converted to pure Java. These fields are still set and

Re: RFR: 8334772: Change Class::protectionDomain and signers to explicit fields

2024-07-17 Thread Chen Liang
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:47:11 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: > Please review this change that moves `Class.protectionDomain` and `signers` > to explicit fields. > > Related native methods in `Class` and `AccessController::getProtectionDomain` > are converted to pure Java. These fields are still set and

Re: RFR: 8331163: Consider Trust Settings to select SSL certificate [v2]

2024-07-17 Thread Alexey Bakhtin
> Please review a proposal to verify Trust Settings for Keychain key entries. > > Keychain-related Jtreg tests passed. Alexey Bakhtin has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Add verification to the manual macos test case - C

RFR: 8261513: Various BasicConstraintsExtension issues

2024-07-17 Thread Ben Perez
8261513: Various BasicConstraintsExtension issues - Commit messages: - Changed constructor, getPathLen, and toString to return a canonical representation for unconstrained pathLens Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20224/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk

Re: RFR: 8028127: Regtest java/security/Security/SynchronizedAccess.java is incorrect [v4]

2024-07-17 Thread Bradford Wetmore
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 13:01:19 GMT, Fernando Guallini wrote: >> test/jdk/java/security/Security/SynchronizedAccess.java line 29: >> >>> 27: * @library /test/lib ../testlibrary >>> 28: * @summary Make sure Provider api implementations are synchronized >>> properly >>> 29: * @run main/othervm S

Re: RFR: 8028127: Regtest java/security/Security/SynchronizedAccess.java is incorrect [v4]

2024-07-17 Thread Bradford Wetmore
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 21:43:22 GMT, Bradford Wetmore wrote: >> Yes, that was my concern, but I would prefer to keep relying on >> ProvidersSnapshot to revert to the original state. > > It's fine if you want to keep `ProvidersSnapshot`, but the `/othervm` is no > longer necessary, AFAICT. Ignore:

Re: RFR: 8028127: Regtest java/security/Security/SynchronizedAccess.java is incorrect [v5]

2024-07-17 Thread Bradford Wetmore
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:42:11 GMT, Fernando Guallini wrote: >> As highlighted in the bug description, The test >> **security/Security/SynchronizedAccess.java** have some issues: >> >> 1. it needs to implement the sigalg, otherwise it throws >> java.security.NoSuchAlgorithmException . Even thou