Gah, apologies, forgot about your note:
Removal of change to java.security.spec.MGF1ParameterSpec to avoid
introducing a new public variable.
No CCC needed.
-Rob
On 23/12/14 16:56, Rob McKenna wrote:
Actually, another kink: this requires ccc approval for a backport to 7.
-Rob
On 23/12/14 16:52, dalibor.to...@oracle.com wrote:
Considering that the issue was a P3 RFE rather than a high priority
bug fix, it's not clear to me why it would be necessary to backport
it into 7u80, at the end point in the release cycle.
--
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
Phone: +494089091214<tel:+494089091214> |
Mobile:+491737185961<tel:+491737185961>
Oracle Java Platform Group
ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg
ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603
Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Kunz
Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Astrid Kepper, Val Maher
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed
to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
On 23.12.2014, at 17:13, Andrew Hughes <gnu.and...@redhat.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Valerie Peng (original author) is probably best suited to reviewing
this
but I think she's out of the office the moment and back next week.
Let's
hope we can get an update/review then.
Hi,
Any movement on this? It's been three months.
Thanks.
regards,
Sean.
On 01/10/2014 16:11, Andrew Hughes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
Code changes generally require two approvals: codereview,
performed by a
reviewer, (in this case from security-dev) and push approval,
performed
by a gatekeeper. Given your email template matches the push
approval
template I understood that you intended the latter. Generally
speaking
codereview requests would say "Request for review" as opposed to
"Request for approval" so a reviewer could overlook your mail if
you
intended the former.
-Rob
On 18/09/14 00:21, Andrew Hughes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Hi Andrew,
Sorry to be a pest, but given the scope of the change I'd feel
more
comfortable with an explicit codereview for the backport.
-Rob
On 17/09/14 18:32, Andrew Hughes wrote:
This is the first of three backports to 7u designed to retain
SSL
compatibility with servers implemented in other languages
switching
to larger key sizes (notably DH >=2048 in Apache 2.4.7 [0]).
This patch is a per-requisite of the patch which brings NSA
Suite B
support to 7. It applies largely unchanged, bar the following:
* Copyright header adjustment
* Removal of change to java.security.spec.MGF1ParameterSpec
to avoid
introducing a new public variable. The SHA-224 variant is
constructed
directly in com.sun.crypto.provider.OAEPParameters instead.
* A change to OAEPParameters is dropped as it was already
incorporated
in the backport of 7180907 & 8049480 (addition of SHA-224 to
convertToStandardName)
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4963723
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/jdk7u/4963723/webrev.01/
[0] https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_ssl.html
Ok to push?
Thanks,
Which is what I asked for, no?
If I wasn't waiting on a review first, I'd have pushed the change.
This was the only applicable template on:
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7u/
Anyway, now including security-dev for review.
--
Andrew :)
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
Ping. Any movement on this?
--
Andrew :)
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07
