Hi Tony,
Source change looks fine.
For the regression test GCMLargeDataKAT.java
1) typo on line 42, "has" -> "hash".
2) Line 128, we should also check result.length to be the expected
value, i.e. data.length - GCM_TAG_LENGTH.
3) Currently, the test continues even if enc check failed (line149-155).
If the enc result is incorrect, why proceed with decryption? Perhaps,
testing against the next key (i.e. data length) after line 155?
4) Remove line 184-189 as they are not used?
5) line 195, no need for this being public?
6) Are 65536, 65537 and 67584 input sizes add additional coverage? For
data sizes 102400 to 102416, they can easily be tested with two byte[]s,
sizes 102400 and 16.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 3/6/2019 3:04 PM, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
Hi
Can I get a review of a simple fix to the previous GCM change that got
the lengths wrong on large data sizes. I thought I covered this in my
original testing, but I guess not. So with this I created a test to
check larger data sizes and different byte lengths
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ascarpino/8220165/
Tony
