On 01/11/2012 06:55 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote: > On 1/11/2012 6:42 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 01/11/2012 06:02 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote: >>> On 1/11/2012 5:50 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>>> Hi Andrew >>>> >>>> Take a brief look at the webrev. Looks like this Lengthable thing is the >>>> only change after your previous webrev. Please confirm. >>>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> But I want something bigger. I would like to know if it is possible to >>>> add this keysize() method deep down into the very basic Key interface. >>>> If Key can have a method called getEncoded() I think this means it >>>> normally has a concrete form and surely has a publicly acceptable >>>> keysize() attribute. In JDK 8 we have default implementation for new >>>> interface methods. Is this issue a good candidate? >>>> >>> As Key is an java interface, we may not be able to add one more method >>> for compatibility reason. We may export the "Lengthable"/"Measurable" >>> interface in JDK 8. It's possible to implement Lengthable in all >>> sub-classes of Key in Oracle provider, but as would involve too many >>> changes. As we need to backport this fix into JDK 7, I think we'd better >>> consider the big picture in the future. >> >> Then I think the previous webrev is enough for JDK 7, and for JDK 8, we >> simply add a new keysize() method to Key. >> > If we add one new method to Key interfaces. The providers based on JDK 7 > and previous releases would have to update their codes so as to > implement this new method. As will result in serious compatibility issues.
I am talking about the new default method language feature in JDK 8 ([1] Section 11, 12). Then the default impl of Key::keySize() returns -1, default impl of SecretKey::keySize() returns getEncoded().length()*8, etc. > > It is possible that we export the "Lengthable" interface, and have > Oracle providers support this interface, and suggest other providers to > use this interfaces. > > The previous webrev hurt the performance a little because of reflections. Thanks for reminding me this. Yes, those P11 and MSCAPI keys. This webrev is still necessary, and the code changes are fine except for 1. SignatureAndHashAlgorithm.java:283, you left a System.out.println 2. KeyLength.java:58, more System.out.printlns 3. KeyLength.java:88, UnsupportedOperationException, necessary? Thanks Max [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/lambda/lambda-state-4.html > > Xuelei > >> Max >> >>> >>>> At least, in KeyLength::getKeySize(), I would like to see "if (key >>>> instanceof Lengthable)" to be the first check, and, if possible, the >>>> only one needed, at least for keys from providers built in JDK. >>>> >>> It's OK to check it at first. But as we also need to support other >>> providers, I think we'd better also check other types of instance. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Xuelei >>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Max >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01/11/2012 08:57 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote: >>>>> "Measurable" looks like a better name. I will update the name in the >>>>> next webrev after this round of code review: >>>>> >>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/7106773/webrev.04/ >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Xuelei >>>>> >>>>> On 1/10/2012 11:47 PM, Vincent Ryan wrote: >>>>>> On 01/10/12 03:19 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/10/2012 11:09 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>>>>>>> It's late night and I'll read it tomorrow. But can you choose another >>>>>>>> word instead of Lengthable? Length is not a verb. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ;-) The name took me a lot of time, searching by google, dictionary, and >>>>>>> any possible English translation. I have to agree that I failed to find >>>>>>> a suitable name. I tried hardly to persuade myself that "lengthable" is >>>>>>> also used by someother application code, so it might not too bad to use >>>>>>> it here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With the word "lengthable", I want to express that the length is >>>>>>> measurable. Any suggestion for the better one? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Measurable ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Xuelei >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Max >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> 发件人: Xuelei Fan >>>>>>>> 发送时间: 2012/1/10 22:51 >>>>>>>> 收件人: Weijun Wang >>>>>>>> 抄送: OpenJDK >>>>>>>> 主题: Re: Code review request, 7106773: 512 bits RSA key cannot work >>>>>>>> withSHA384 and SHA512 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It has been around 50 days passed since the last day we talked about >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> issue. Hope you can recall it from the deep memory. ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> webrev: http://javaweb.us.oracle.com/~xufan/bugbios/7106773/webrev.04/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In this update, as we agreed, a new Oracle private interface was >>>>>>>> introduced: sun.security.util.Lengthable, and Lengthable.length() is >>>>>>>> defined to get the length an object. sun.security.pkcs11.P11Key and >>>>>>>> sun.security.mscapi.Key will implements the interface. As will easy and >>>>>>>> speedup (comparing with reflection approach) the getting of key length >>>>>>>> of those unextractable keys in hardware device. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the webrev, I should also include another two signed jars, >>>>>>>> sunpkcs11.jar and sunmscapi.jar. I will include them when I get the >>>>>>>> official signed jars. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Xuelei >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/22/2011 8:41 AM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>>>>>>>> I really like this one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> Max >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2011 08:05 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> How about this approach? This looks very safe. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I also prefer this approach, although it need more updates in PKCS11 >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> MSCPI source code. If you vote for this approach, I will try to >>>>>>>>>> implement it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
