Siba,
I have just started to review this webrev and not done yet.
As for your question, the java.security file in OpenJDK9 still uses the
provider class names instead of provider names. Are you talking about
the java.security file in Jigsaw? Which build (OpenJDK or Jigsaw) have
you tested against. I am pretty sure that I tested the 3rd party
provider on classpath setting when I worked on the 7191662 changes.
Supposedly, if the jar files are available on class path, then you
should specify its full *class name* in the java.security file for it to
be instantiated. Otherwise, how would it find the class? Only the
classes discovered by ServiceLoader can be identified using the provider
name (which is different from the class name referred above). So, in
your scenario, that would be "provider.TestJCEProvider" instead of "TEST".
If you still run into problems, try enable the java security debug flag
and u should get a good idea why it isn't loaded. Let me know if you
still have questions.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 11/30/2015 6:47 AM, Sibabrata Sahoo wrote:
I would like to know more about this. As far, I can see the "java.security"
provider configuration available with JDK9, it holds provider names instead of provider
class names. In that case how it resolve the fall back?
Thanks,
Siba
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Bateman
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 4:54 PM
To: Sibabrata Sahoo; security-dev@openjdk.java.net; jigsaw-...@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: [9] RFR:8130360: Add tests to verify 3rd party security providers
if they are in signed/unsigned modular JARs
On 30/11/2015 11:13, Sibabrata Sahoo wrote:
Here is the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmotrak/siba/8130360/webrev.02/
I have one question:
What should be the behavior when the older version of 3rd party JCE provider jar file(without service
descriptor "META-INF/services/*"& working with<= JDK8) configured by
"java.security" file, will be place in CLASS_PATH, running through JDK9 and the client is using
Security.getProvider() to look for the provider?
Currently the scenario fails to find the JCE provider. Is this right behavior?
If it is, then jdk9 is not backward compatible to find the security provider
provided through older jar files from CLASS_PATH.
The JCE work in JDK 9 (via JDK-7191662) was meant to address this point by falling
back and attempting to load the class name specified via the
security.provider.<N> properties in the java.security file. I'm sure Valerie
can say more about this.
-Alan
