Re: RFR: 8258833: Cancel multi-part cipher operations in SunPKCS11 after failures [v6]

2021-01-19 Thread Valerie Peng
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:28:28 GMT, Martin Balao wrote: >> When a multi-part cipher operation fails in SunPKCS11 (i.e. because of an >> invalid block size), we now cancel the operation before returning the >> underlying Session to the Session Manager. This allows to use the returned >> Session

Re: RFR: 8258833: Cancel multi-part cipher operations in SunPKCS11 after failures [v5]

2021-01-19 Thread Valerie Peng
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:51:20 GMT, Martin Balao wrote: >> When a multi-part cipher operation fails in SunPKCS11 (i.e. because of an >> invalid block size), we now cancel the operation before returning the >> underlying Session to the Session Manager. This allows to use the returned >> Session

Re: RFR: 8258833: Cancel multi-part cipher operations in SunPKCS11 after failures [v6]

2021-01-19 Thread Valerie Peng
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:28:28 GMT, Martin Balao wrote: >> When a multi-part cipher operation fails in SunPKCS11 (i.e. because of an >> invalid block size), we now cancel the operation before returning the >> underlying Session to the Session Manager. This allows to use the returned >> Session

Re: RFR: 8258833: Cancel multi-part cipher operations in SunPKCS11 after failures [v6]

2021-01-19 Thread Valerie Peng
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:28:28 GMT, Martin Balao wrote: >> When a multi-part cipher operation fails in SunPKCS11 (i.e. because of an >> invalid block size), we now cancel the operation before returning the >> underlying Session to the Session Manager. This allows to use the returned >> Session

Re: RFR: 8258833: Cancel multi-part cipher operations in SunPKCS11 after failures [v6]

2021-01-19 Thread Valerie Peng
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:28:28 GMT, Martin Balao wrote: >> When a multi-part cipher operation fails in SunPKCS11 (i.e. because of an >> invalid block size), we now cancel the operation before returning the >> underlying Session to the Session Manager. This allows to use the returned >> Session

Re: RFR: 8253821: Improve ByteBuffer performance with GCM

2021-01-19 Thread Chen Li
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 20:22:55 GMT, Anthony Scarpino wrote: > 8253821: Improve ByteBuffer performance with GCM Hi @ascarpino, could you please share which Flink test you ran? Thanks! - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/411

Re: RFR: 8259498: Reduce overhead of MD5 and SHA digests [v4]

2021-01-19 Thread Valerie Peng
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:39:04 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote: >> - The MD5 intrinsics added by >> [JDK-8250902](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250902) shows that >> the `int[] x` isn't actually needed. This also applies to the SHA intrinsics >> from which the MD5 intrinsic takes

RFR: 8255348: NPE in PKIXCertPathValidator event logging code

2021-01-19 Thread Sean Coffey
Correction of NPE and updating of test cases. Minor refactoring of test library also. - Commit messages: - 8255348: NPE in PKIXCertPathValidator event logging code Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2150/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=2150=00

Re: [jdk16] RFR: JDK-8259732: JDK 16 L10n resource file update - msg drop 10 [v3]

2021-01-19 Thread Naoto Sato
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 05:52:57 GMT, Leo Jiang wrote: >> This is the changes for JDK 16 msg drop 10. > > Leo Jiang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > fix the missing copyright year for standard.properties Marked as reviewed by

TLS Manual: Call for contributions

2021-01-19 Thread Ben Smyth
I've written a TLS manual, intended to ease readers into the most recent specification. (At the very least, it helped me get to grips with the spec!) I've now made the manual available on GitHub: https://github.com/BenSmyth/tls-tutorial/ A pdf is also available

Re: Java and the NTFS Path weakness

2021-01-19 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
Hello Alan, I don’t think this is a Java vulnerability (but something Java application programmers have to deal with), that’s why I sent it to the mailing list (for lack of better channels). Still there is a lesson to learn, we have two different windows file Name parsing behaviors in the

Re: Java and the NTFS Path weakness

2021-01-19 Thread Alan Bateman
On 18/01/2021 21:29, Bernd wrote: Hello, bad news everyone. The second Windows Filesystem related security bug reported by Jonas Lykkegaard which allows crashing Windows with a unpriveledged read access also affects JVM and it is not filtered by Path.of. Which means bot new