On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 20:34:21 GMT, Ben Perez <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Refactored PKCS9Attribute to use a hash map instead of multiple arrays. The > key for the hash map is an `ObjectIdentifier` and the values are a record > `AttributeInfo` that stores the information previously contained in the > arrays `PKCS9_VALUE_TAGS`, `VALUE_CLASSES`, and `SINGLE_VALUED`. > > It seems as though we should be able to get rid of constants such as > `EMAIL_ADDRESS_OID` since they aren't heavily used with the hash map > approach, but since the values are public it might cause compatibility issues. > > Another question is how to handle `RSA DSI`, `S/MIME`, > `Extended-certificate`, and `Issuer Serial Number` OIDs. The prior version > threw an error but in this refactor they are treated as an "unknown OID" and > only throw a debug warning. This was addressed in > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8011867 but prior to this refactor the > aforementioned OIDs were treated differently than unknown OIDs. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 186: > 184: /** > 185: * Array of attribute OIDs defined in PKCS9, by number. > 186: */ I don't think `PKCS9_OIDS` is useful now. It's used in `PKCS9Attributes.getAttributes()` but this method is used nowhere. It's also used in `PKCS9Attributes.toString` but we can just iterate through `attributes` there. I don't see a reason to print the attributes in this order. If we want to print them in the order they appear in the data, we can use `LinkedHashMap` to in `PKCS9Attributes`. `Hashtable` is a little stale. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 193: > 191: static { > 192: try { > 193: BYTE_ARRAY_CLASS = Class.forName("[B"); Is this simply `byte[].class`? In fact I wonder if it's worth define a variable for this. Just use the literal directly everywhere. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 220: > 218: ObjectIdentifier.of(KnownOIDs.IssuerAndSerialNumber); > 219: // [11], [12] are RSA DSI proprietary > 220: // [13] ==> signingDescription, S/MIME, not used anymore No need to talk about indexes in the array now since there is no array. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 230: > 228: ObjectIdentifier.of(KnownOIDs.CMSAlgorithmProtection); > 229: > 230: private static final Map<ObjectIdentifier,AttributeInfo> oidMap = > new LinkedHashMap<>(); Why `Linked`? Need an order somewhere? src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 232: > 230: private static final Map<ObjectIdentifier,AttributeInfo> oidMap = > new LinkedHashMap<>(); > 231: private static void add(ObjectIdentifier oid, boolean singleValued, > 232: Class<?> valueClass, Byte[] valueTags) { I think there is no need to use `Byte`, just using `byte` is OK. There is nowhere that the tag can be `null`. The `indexOf()` method is only used once and it needs not be generel. Also, if you make the last argument above a vararg (`byte... valueTag`), there will be no need to write so many `new Byte[] {` in the `add` calls. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 241: > 239: static { > 240: try { > 241: Class<?> str = Class.forName("[Ljava.lang.String;"); `String[].class`. In fact I wonder if it's worth define a variable for this. Just use the literal directly everywhere. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 255: > 253: > 254: add(CONTENT_TYPE_OID, true, > 255: Class.forName("sun.security.util.ObjectIdentifier"), `sun.security.util.ObjectIdentifier.class`, same below. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 287: > 285: new Byte[]{DerValue.tag_Sequence}); > 286: > 287: add(SIGNING_CERTIFICATE_OID, true, null, Is the `null` class here safe? `SigningCertificateInfo` is already used elsewhere. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 308: > 306: /** > 307: * The index of the OID of this attribute in <code>PKCS9_OIDS</code>, > 308: * or -1 if it's unknown. Rewrite comment. Also for `value`. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 339: > 337: > 338: private void init(ObjectIdentifier oid, Object value) > 339: throws IllegalArgumentException { If we inline `init` into its caller, there is a chance to make all fields `final`. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 344: > 342: info = oidMap.get(oid); > 343: Class<?> clazz = (info == null) ? BYTE_ARRAY_CLASS : > info.valueClass(); > 344: if (clazz == null) { If we assign a class to `SIGNING_CERTIFICATE_OID`, this will never be null. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 462: > 460: break; > 461: > 462: default: // Can't happen Then throw an exception. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 480: > 478: > 479: KnownOIDs knownOID = KnownOIDs.findMatch(oid.toString()); > 480: if (knownOID == null) { The OID might be defined in `KnownOIDs` but not supported here. Then you might fall into the `default` case below. I think a better check is to see if `info` is null. src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs/PKCS9Attribute.java line 574: > 572: break; > 573: > 574: default: // Can't happen Then throw an exception. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434277885 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434283698 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434284316 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434284947 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434293465 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434296628 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434300444 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434309185 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434306645 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434330844 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434310225 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434331159 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434336294 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17132#discussion_r1434336632
