Update: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/sandbox/rev/2d7e08d730b6
On 6/7/2018 7:36 PM, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
I'm working my way through CipherSuite.java, slow going as I'm making
sure all of the ciphersuites got updated to the new format.
SSLServerSocketFactoryImpl.java
-------------------------------
This comment is actually an overall comment in other files in your
review. Typically we don't make changes just for style (e.g. foo ()
-> foo() , lines 56/73), but I'm guessing since so much has changed,
you're just going to clean things up now? So I'm wondering why you
didn't do it in line /75/80/82/87/89/etc. I'm all for making this
change now since the world is changing anyway.
38/73: Why not just make it one line? It's under 80 chars.
41: context can be final.
Updated.
CipherSuite.java
----------------
28-33: Just wondering why you chose to enumerate all of the java.util.*;
The IDE did it automatically.
ProtocolVersion.java
--------------------
29-32: Same question about enumerating all instances.
41: And in SSLConfiguration: 99-101. Why not just get rid of this now?
It's going to be 0x0304 in the final RFC.
Interop testing depends on it right now. The System property will be
remove before we ship the produce.
49: I believe this protocol number is your anticipated number, I don't
see it mentioned anywhere in the current DTLS spec:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-26
Just alluded to in section 5.3, but I haven't see anything in my further
IETF scanning about a specific DTLS version number having been assigned.
Later down, you mention DTLS 1.3 quite a bit (e.g. PROTOCOLS_TO_13), is
this going to cause any adverse reactions since there is no DTLS 1.3
implementation yet?
I removed DTLS 1.3 as we don't actually support it right now.
95: Why does this comment say 1.3 if this is a _OF_30?
136-146: These "T" names are a little non-intuitive.
PROTOCOLS_TO_TLS11? Should there be a similar for _TO_TLS13? What
about PROTCOLS_TO_DTLS*?
Updated.
229: I probably don't understand the callers of this code well enough.
If DTLS, you return true if it's DLTS10/12/13 or later. But false if
less. Why are you allowing DTLS 1.0 and all later (unknown) versions?
Same question for the TLS arm. Why fail earlier than SSLv3, and allow
above TLSv1.3? Also suggest you move the 243 into the else arm.
I added a comment for this method. It is used to check if the requested
version number is beyond the minimal supported numbers. For example, if
client request ox0304, because of version negotiation, 0x0303 (TLS 1.2)
should be negotiated. However, if the requested number is 0x0101, the
receiver should reject the connection as the version number is too small
to be supported.
289: You already checked this condition in 285-287 above. And then 304
is no longer needed.
Good catch!
Thanks,
Xuelei
Brad
On 6/7/2018 10:28 AM, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
Also reviewed SSLSocketFactoryImpl.java
BaseSSLSocketImpl.java
----------------------
I don't see where requireCloseNotify is actually being used in the
remaining code. If you are removing this functionality, you should
probably be calling that out in your CSR.
SSLSessionContextImpl.java
--------------------------
The only change here was to reorder the import of Vector (obsolete)
and update the copyright? May I ask why? If this was somehow a
netbeans suggestion, there were several other things that could be
updated that seem more important. e.g. 37-39 could be made final.
207: unnecessary unboxing.
Brad
On 6/6/2018 5:45 PM, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
Today, I looked over SunJSSE.java, Utilities.java, and
module-info.java. Mostly nits below, some style things.
Utilities.java
--------------
39: hexDigits can be private.
42: Extra level of indent. 4 or 8.
39-41: Nits: When variables are static finals, they are usually
written uppercase.
115: Extra " " and can we get SNI cap'd?
HostName for server name indication
->
HostName for Server Name Indication
150: Minor Nit: You're concating ("+") and then using
StringBuilder.append(), instead of simply append chaining which might
be slightly more efficient.
167-217: The code looks ok, but this might be reworked to take
better advantage of StringBuilder.append() chaining, rather than the
mix of concat and append here now. e.g. what you did with
toHexString(long). I see much of the same code repeated over and over
here. Can be done later.
Brad
On 6/3/2018 9:43 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Hi,
Here it the 2nd full webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8196584/webrev-full.01
and the delta update to the 1st webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8196584/webrev-delta.00/
Xuelei
On 5/25/2018 4:45 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to invite you to review the TLS 1.3 implementation. I
appreciate it if I could have compatibility and specification
feedback before May 31, 2018, and implementation feedback before
June 7, 2018.
Here is the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8196584/webrev-full.00
The formal TLS 1.3 specification is not finalized yet, although it
had been approved to be a standard. The implementation is based on
the draft version 28:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28
For the overall description of this enhancement, please refer to
JEP 332:
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/332
For the compatibility and specification update, please refer to CSR
8202625:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202625
Note that we are using the sandbox for the development right now.
For more information, please refer to Bradford's previous email:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2018-May/017139.html
Thanks & Regards,
Xuelei
