Re: RFR: 8346094: Harden X509CertImpl.getExtensionValue for NPE cases [v2]

2025-02-09 Thread Konanki Sreenath
> Earlier code will trigger NPE if the certificate does not contain the > extensions or if the requested extensions does not exist. The better approach > for hardening **getExtensionValue** here is to to check for NULL explicitly > before calling **getExtensionValue()** and avoding try-catch blo

Re: RFR: 8346094: Harden X509CertImpl.getExtensionValue for NPE cases

2025-02-09 Thread Konanki Sreenath
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 15:12:08 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: > > I'm wondering how necessary this fix is. These are internal classes, only > > called inside JDK, where some pre-conditions are always met. Unless someone > > explicitly calls `x509Certimpl.getInfo().setExtensions(null)` (as done in > > th

Re: RFR: 8342682: Errors related to unused code on Windows after 8339120 in dt_shmem jdwp security and jpackage [v7]

2025-02-09 Thread Julian Waters
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:51:35 GMT, Julian Waters wrote: >> After 8339120, gcc began catching many different instances of unused code in >> the Windows specific codebase. Some of these seem to be bugs. I've taken the >> effort to mark out all the relevant globals and locals that trigger the >> u