Re: RFR: ChaCha20 and ChaCha20/Poly1305 Cipher implementations

2018-05-02 Thread Jamil Nimeh
On 05/02/2018 07:35 AM, Sean Mullan wrote: On 5/1/18 6:55 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote: 262 counter = 1; Here you set the counter field to 1, but this method can still throw exceptions after that. Is there any risk of leaving the object in an inconsistent state by setting counter=1 if

Re: RFR: ChaCha20 and ChaCha20/Poly1305 Cipher implementations

2018-05-02 Thread Sean Mullan
On 5/1/18 6:55 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote: 262 counter = 1; Here you set the counter field to 1, but this method can still throw exceptions after that. Is there any risk of leaving the object in an inconsistent state by setting counter=1 if this method fails to complete successfully? Same

Re: RFR: ChaCha20 and ChaCha20/Poly1305 Cipher implementations

2018-05-02 Thread Sean Mullan
On 5/2/18 11:23 AM, Jamil Nimeh wrote: Ok. I think as long as these fields are never dependent on previous values if you call engineInit again, then it is ok. In other words, they should be the same even if the previous call to engineInit throws an Exception. It might be safer as the first

Re: RFR: ChaCha20 and ChaCha20/Poly1305 Cipher implementations

2018-05-02 Thread Sean Mullan
On 5/1/18 5:45 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote: 134 throw new IllegalArgumentException(  135 "Unsupported parameter format: " + decodingMethod); Although this seems like a reasonable exception to throw, AlgorithmParametersSpi.engineInit is not spec'ed to throw this, so

Re: RFR for 6443578 and 6202130: UTF-8 in Manifests

2018-05-02 Thread Philipp Kunz
Hi, Here is patch for 6443578 and 6202130 also in webrev form. http://files.paratix.ch/jdk/6372077and6443578/webrev.01/ http://files.paratix.ch/jdk/6372077and6443578/webrev.01.zip Hope it helps. With all the patience, can I do anything to make it easier to get feedback or find a sponsor?

Re: RFR 8202299: Java Keystore fails to load PKCS12/PFX certificates created in WindowsServer2016

2018-05-02 Thread Weijun Wang
Yes, I meant \0. Will fix it. Thanks Max > On Apr 28, 2018, at 1:10 AM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > Hello, > > Is the following comment correct, it looks like it should read „with NUL > terminator“ instead? > > // without a NULL terminator > > Greetings > Bernd > >