Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Phil Race
On Thu, 20 May 2021 04:05:23 GMT, Phil Race wrote: >> By converting JDK-8267432 to a bug, there is an extra benefit that we can >> fix it after RDP. So I'll convert it now. > > That is unfortunate, but nonetheless I think required to be done. > We have acknowledeged this can't reasonably be

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Phil Race
On Thu, 20 May 2021 02:09:57 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> I can make it a bug. >> >> I don't want to do it here is because it involves indefinite amount of >> manual work and we will see everyone having their preferences. The more time >> we spend on this PR the more likely there will be merge

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Weijun Wang
On Thu, 20 May 2021 02:06:46 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Well .. as an enhancement (P3 or otherwise) I can see it being dropped and >> definitely if it misses the fork, >> and I don't get why you can't do it here. And if it isn't done the JEP isn't >> really ready. >> I already pasted the patch

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Weijun Wang
On Wed, 19 May 2021 23:50:04 GMT, Phil Race wrote: >> I just made it P3 (P4 was the default value), and I will target it to 17 >> once JEP 411 is targeted 17. But I think it's probably not a good idea to >> include it inside *this* PR. There are some middle ground where it's >> debatable if a

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Phil Race
On Wed, 19 May 2021 22:14:20 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> I don't think it is a separate P4 enhancement (?) that someone will (maybe) >> do next release. >> I think it should all be taken care of as part of this proposed change. > > I just made it P3 (P4 was the default value), and I will target

Withdrawn: 8262880: Add support for the NSS Key Log Format for SSL/TLS keys

2021-05-19 Thread duke
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 17:18:39 GMT, Greg Rubin wrote: > This is my implementation for > [JDK-8262880](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8262880) and enables > creating of an SSL/TLS key log in the standardized [NSS Key Log >

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Weijun Wang
On Wed, 19 May 2021 22:04:57 GMT, Phil Race wrote: >> Correct, there are ways to modify the code to make it more >> annotation-friendly. We thought about whether it's good to do it before >> adding the annotations or after it. Our decision now is to do it after >> because it will be more easy

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Phil Race
On Wed, 19 May 2021 21:53:35 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> That's a sad limitation of the annotation stuff then, but I don't think that >> it is insurmountable. >> You can define a static private method to contain this and call it from the >> static initializer block. >> Much better than applying

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Weijun Wang
On Wed, 19 May 2021 19:31:24 GMT, Phil Race wrote: >> This happens when a deprecated method is called inside a static block. The >> annotation can only be added to a declaration and here it must be the whole >> class. The call in this file is >> >> s =

Re: RFR: 8267184: JEP 411: Add -Djava.security.manager=allow to tests calling System.setSecurityManager [v2]

2021-05-19 Thread Sean Mullan
On Tue, 18 May 2021 21:44:43 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Please review the test changes for [JEP >> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411). >> >> With JEP 411 and the default value of `-Djava.security.manager` becoming >> `disallow`, tests calling `System.setSecurityManager()` need >>

Re: RFR: 8255557: Decouple GCM from CipherCore [v4]

2021-05-19 Thread Valerie Peng
On Wed, 19 May 2021 20:21:23 GMT, Anthony Scarpino wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I need a review of this rather large change to GCM. GCM will no longer use >> CipherCore, and AESCrypt to handle it's buffers and other objects. It is >> also a major code redesign limits the amount of data copies and

Re: RFR: 8255557: Decouple GCM from CipherCore [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Valerie Peng
On Tue, 18 May 2021 03:18:18 GMT, Anthony Scarpino wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I need a review of this rather large change to GCM. GCM will no longer use >> CipherCore, and AESCrypt to handle it's buffers and other objects. It is >> also a major code redesign limits the amount of data copies and

Re: RFR: 8255557: Decouple GCM from CipherCore [v2]

2021-05-19 Thread Valerie Peng
On Mon, 17 May 2021 21:41:37 GMT, Anthony Scarpino wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I need a review of this rather large change to GCM. GCM will no longer use >> CipherCore, and AESCrypt to handle it's buffers and other objects. It is >> also a major code redesign limits the amount of data copies and

Re: RFR: 8255557: Decouple GCM from CipherCore [v4]

2021-05-19 Thread Anthony Scarpino
> Hi, > > I need a review of this rather large change to GCM. GCM will no longer use > CipherCore, and AESCrypt to handle it's buffers and other objects. It is > also a major code redesign limits the amount of data copies and make some > performance-based decisions. > > Thanks > > Tony

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Phil Race
On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:38:39 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/Component.java line 217: >> >>> 215: * @author Sami Shaio >>> 216: */ >>> 217: @SuppressWarnings("removal") >> >> Why is this placed on the *entire class* ?? >> This class is 10535 lines long

RFR: 8266400: importkeystore fails to a password less pkcs12 keystore

2021-05-19 Thread Hai-May Chao
Please review the fix to address keytool -importkeystore failure when importing to a password-less PKCS12 keystore. - Commit messages: - 8266400: importkeystore fails to a password less pkcs12 keystore Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4119/files Webrev:

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Weijun Wang
On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:44:06 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Similar as the one above, it's because of >> >> static { >> // Don't lazy-read because every app uses invalidate() >> isJavaAwtSmartInvalidate = AccessController.doPrivileged( >> new

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Weijun Wang
On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:39:10 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/Container.java line 97: >> >>> 95: * @since 1.0 >>> 96: */ >>> 97: @SuppressWarnings("removal") >> >> Same issue as with Component. a > 5,000 line file that uses AccessController >> in just 4

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Weijun Wang
On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:26:25 GMT, Phil Race wrote: >> Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> fixing awt/datatransfer/DataFlavor/DataFlavorRemoteTest.java > > src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/Component.java

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Phil Race
On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:47:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Please review this implementation of [JEP >> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411). >> >> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one. >> >> 1. >>

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Phil Race
On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:47:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Please review this implementation of [JEP >> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411). >> >> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one. >> >> 1. >>

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Phil Race
On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:47:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Please review this implementation of [JEP >> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411). >> >> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one. >> >> 1. >>

Re: [8u] RFR: 8206925: Support the certificate_authorities extension

2021-05-19 Thread Andrew Hughes
On 12:23 Tue 20 Apr , Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi, > > Please review this OpenJDK 8u backport of the certificate_authorities > extensionj. The OpenJDK 11u patch didn't apply cleanly after path > unshuffeling, but was fairly trivial to resolve. Conflicts caused by: > > 1.

Withdrawn: 8258588: MD5 MessageDigest in java.util.UUID should be cached

2021-05-19 Thread duke
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:36:17 GMT, PROgrm_JARvis wrote: > Please review this change moving lookup of MD5 digest in `java.lang.UUID` to > an internal holder class. This pull request has been closed without being integrated. - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1821

AW: [11u] RFR: 8266293: Key protection using PBEWithMD5AndDES fails with "java.security.InvalidAlgorithmParameterException: Salt must be 8 bytes long"

2021-05-19 Thread Doerr, Martin
Hi Götz, thank you for the review! Best regards, Martin Von: Lindenmaier, Goetz Datum: Mittwoch, 19. Mai 2021 um 12:10 An: Doerr, Martin , jdk-updates-...@openjdk.java.net , security-dev Betreff: RE: [11u] RFR: 8266293: Key protection using PBEWithMD5AndDES fails with

Re: RFR: 8267110: Update java.util to use instanceof pattern variable [v2]

2021-05-19 Thread Patrick Concannon
> Hi, > > Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util` > package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable? > > Kind regards, > Patrick Patrick Concannon has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v3]

2021-05-19 Thread Weijun Wang
> Please review this implementation of [JEP > 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411). > > The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one. > > 1. > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28c9f9be7941a1 > The essential change for this JEP,

Re: RFR: 8266459: Implement JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal [v2]

2021-05-19 Thread Weijun Wang
On Tue, 18 May 2021 21:21:45 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Please review this implementation of [JEP >> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411). >> >> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one. >> >> 1. >>

Updates to JEP 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal

2021-05-19 Thread Sean Mullan
Thanks for those that have taken the time to review JEP 411 [1]. The JEP has been updated today with a few changes, the most significant which is the addition of a new section titled "Future Work" [2] which lists related potential enhancements and works in progress. Other smaller changes have

Re: RFR: 8264774: Implementation of Foreign Function and Memory API (Incubator) [v23]

2021-05-19 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
> This PR contains the API and implementation changes for JEP-412 [1]. A more > detailed description of such changes, to avoid repetitions during the review > process, is included as a separate comment. > > [1] - https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/412 Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull

RE: [11u] RFR: 8266293: Key protection using PBEWithMD5AndDES fails with "java.security.InvalidAlgorithmParameterException: Salt must be 8 bytes long"

2021-05-19 Thread Lindenmaier, Goetz
Hi Martin, This looks good to me. The adaption makes sense. Best regards, Goetz. From: security-dev On Behalf Of Doerr, Martin Sent: Dienstag, 18. Mai 2021 17:03 To: jdk-updates-...@openjdk.java.net; security-dev Subject: [11u] RFR: 8266293: Key protection using PBEWithMD5AndDES fails

Re: RFR: 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event [v2]

2021-05-19 Thread Erik Gahlin
On Tue, 18 May 2021 22:41:06 GMT, Brent Christian wrote: >> Please review this enhancement to add a new JFR event, generated whenever a >> finalizer is run. >> (The makeup is similar to the Deserialization event, >> [JDK-8261160](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261160).) >> >> The

Re: RFR: 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event [v2]

2021-05-19 Thread Alan Bateman
On Wed, 19 May 2021 06:20:59 GMT, Erik Gahlin wrote: > This looks useful, but I am worried about the performance impact: > > * The added allocation for every object that is finalized. > * The event being enabled in the default configuration. > > The default configuration must be safe to use

Re: RFR: 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event [v2]

2021-05-19 Thread Erik Gahlin
On Tue, 18 May 2021 22:41:06 GMT, Brent Christian wrote: >> Please review this enhancement to add a new JFR event, generated whenever a >> finalizer is run. >> (The makeup is similar to the Deserialization event, >> [JDK-8261160](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261160).) >> >> The