+1
> On Oct 30, 2019, at 2:00 PM, Anthony Scarpino
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/19 1:13 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Anyone has a minute to review this trivial fix? The supported key size info
>> for the PKCS#11 PSS mechanism should be in bits. The current code treat them
>> as in bytes. This does no
Martin,
Newer JDK families should be using the PKCS12 keystore format. For that
reason, I kept it 8u only. It was a solution to address a particular use
case reported by an Oracle JDK user.
regards,
Sean.
On 30/10/2019 18:21, Martin Balao wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed that 8223269 [1] (not publi
On 10/30/19 1:13 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
Anyone has a minute to review this trivial fix? The supported key size
info for the PKCS#11 PSS mechanism should be in bits. The current code
treat them as in bytes. This does not cause any existing regression test
failure because NSS has a very low valu
Ok, I will take a look~
Valerie
On 10/30/2019 10:48 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
ping ...
On 10/24/2019 1:56 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Hi,
Could I get the following update reviewed?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8223940/webrev.00/
For signature algorithms, the update will fail back to use th
Anyone has a minute to review this trivial fix? The supported key size
info for the PKCS#11 PSS mechanism should be in bits. The current code
treat them as in bytes. This does not cause any existing regression test
failure because NSS has a very low value, i.e. 128, as the minimum key
size.
B
Hi,
I've noticed that 8223269 [1] (not public) has been included in Oracle's
8u231 JDK [2].
Is there a reason not to have this in JDK baseline? (and, thus, create a
backport for the open JDKs)
In case there is not, I'll proceed with a new ticket (unless you want to
make [1] public), a CSR and a
ping ...
On 10/24/2019 1:56 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Hi,
Could I get the following update reviewed?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8223940/webrev.00/
For signature algorithms, the update will fail back to use the supported
signature algorithm for the specific private key. Previously, t
Hi Martin,
Sorry for the late reply... been rather busy the last days.
You're asking me to review the CSR for backporting JDK8215032. I, however, am
not an expert in that area and could probably only check whether you copied the
content correctly from the original CSR. So, I'd like to refer thi
