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
>>
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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:
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
16 matches
Mail list logo