On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 19:24:45 GMT, SalusaSecondus <github.com+829871+salusasecon...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> We seem to have a choice and I'm not sure the best way to approach this. >> >> 1. We trust the properties in `P11Key` and just ask it if the values are >> both sensitive and extractable. [1] >> 2. But if we already trust P11Key, why not also trust that it properly >> implements the RSAPrivateKey interfaces [2]. This is the strategy used by >> the snippet I posted earlier (delegating to `implGetSoftwareFactory()`) >> 3. We don't trust P11Key except to use getKeyId(), this yields the current >> design where we pull the attributes every time the factory needs them. >> >> We should probably reduce calls to `C_GetAttributeValue` as they may be very >> slow. At the least they cross the JNI boundary and at worst they interact >> with a slow piece of hardware (possibly over a network). The current design >> will have two calls in a worst case, but is likely to have only one call the >> vast majority of the time. >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.crypto.cryptoki/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs11/P11Key.java#L92 >> [2] >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/jdk.crypto.cryptoki/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs11/P11Key.java#L375-L406 > > P11PrivateKey is private so we cannot check that. Our options to figure out > if something is sensitive are: > 1. See if it doesn't implement `RSAPrivateKey` (this yields the prior snippet > with `implGetSoftwareFactory()`) > 2. Try to access the attributes directly from the token (this yields the > current solution which we're modifying) > 3. Check the value of `p11Key.extractable` (which is package-private and thus > visible) > > The smallest change would be to keep our strategy as 2. While I like it the > least (my favorite is number 1) it has the smallest risk of changing some > undocumented behavior on a PKCS#11 device that we're unfamiliar with (and not > testing because we may not have the hardware costing tens of thousands of > dollars). Option 3 somewhat spits the difference between 1 and 2. Or, how about changing the scope of P11PrivateKey/P11RSAPrivateKey/P11RSAPrivateNonCRTKey to pkg private? This way we can take advantage of the info implied by the type of class and avoid the potential double failure of querying the attributes. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2949
