On Mon, 2 Nov 2026 05:22:39 GMT, Timofei Fedotov <[email protected]> wrote:

>> DTLSReassembler can queue fragments of the same handshake message with 
>> different total messageLength values. Reassembly holes are initialized from 
>> the first fragment, while the output array is allocated using the fragment 
>> with the lowest offset.
>> 
>> For the same epoch, message sequence, and HELLO_REQUEST type, submit these 
>> fragments in order:
>> offset 5, length 50, total message length 100;
>> offset 0, length 5, total message length 10;
>> offset 55, length 45, total message length 100.
>> 
>> The final fragment completes the holes, but copying the buffered fragments 
>> into the array sized for a ten-byte message triggers 
>> ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException. SSLEngineImpl catches this runtime exception 
>> and reports a fatal SSLException; it does not establish a JVM crash.
>> 
>> Expected behavior the inconsistent handshake metadata must be rejected as a 
>> protocol error before fragment reassembly.
>> 
>> ---------
>> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the 
>> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).
>
> Timofei Fedotov has updated the pull request incrementally with two 
> additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Verify complete DTLS handshake fragment reassembly
>  - Test inconsistent DTLS handshake fragment types

src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/DTLSInputRecord.java line 586:

> 584:     }
> 585: 
> 586:     private record HandshakeHoles(

I suggest to rename this class to `HandshakeReassemblyState`

src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/DTLSInputRecord.java line 751:

> 749:                     (hsf.fragmentLength != hsf.messageLength);
> 750: 
> 751:             HandshakeHoles message =

I suggest to rename `message` to `reassemblyState` here and in other places, 
`message` looks rather confusing.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33633#discussion_r4448303982
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33633#discussion_r4448329961

Reply via email to