On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:57:02 GMT, Martin Balao <mba...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> In addition to the goals, scope, motivation, specification and requirement >> notes in [JDK-8315487](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315487), we >> would like to describe the most relevant decisions taken during the >> implementation of this enhancement. These notes are organized by feature, >> may encompass more than one file or code segment, and are aimed to provide a >> high-level view of this PR. >> >> ## ProvidersFilter >> >> ### Filter construction (parser) >> >> The providers filter is constructed from a string value, taken from either a >> system or a security property with name "jdk.security.providers.filter". >> This process occurs at sun.security.jca.ProvidersFilter class —simply >> referred as ProvidersFilter onward— static initialization. Thus, changes to >> the filter's overridable property are not effective afterwards and no >> assumptions should be made regarding when this class gets initialized. >> >> The filter's string value is processed with a custom parser of order 'n', >> being 'n' the number of characters. The parser, represented by the >> ProvidersFilter.Parser class, can be characterized as a Deterministic Finite >> Automaton (DFA). The ProvidersFilter.Parser::parse method is the starting >> point to get characters from the filter's string value and generate state >> transitions in the parser's internal state-machine. See >> ProvidersFilter.Parser::nextState for more details about the parser's states >> and both valid and invalid transitions. The ParsingState enum defines valid >> parser states and Transition the reasons to move between states. If a filter >> string cannot be parsed, a ProvidersFilter.ParserException exception is >> thrown, and turned into an unchecked IllegalArgumentException in the >> ProvidersFilter.Filter constructor. >> >> While we analyzed —and even tried, at early stages of the development— the >> use of regular expressions for filter parsing, we discarded the approach in >> order to get maximum performance, support a more advanced syntax and have >> flexibility for further extensions in the future. >> >> ### Filter (structure and behavior) >> >> A filter is represented by the ProvidersFilter.Filter class. It consists of >> an ordered list of rules, returned by the parser, that represents filter >> patterns from left to right (see the filter syntax for reference). At the >> end of this list, a match-all and deny rule is added for default behavior. >> When a service is evaluated against the filter, each filter rule is checked >> in the ProvidersFilter.Filter::apply method. The rule makes an all... > > Martin Balao has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes > brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Add a debug message to inform the Filter property value read. > > See more in > https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/security-dev/2024-October/041800.html > > Co-authored-by: Martin Balao Alonso <mba...@redhat.com> > Co-authored-by: Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet <fferr...@redhat.com> Please make a clarification in the JEP. FIPS is just a case we used to talk about how the feature could be used in practice. I did not see the benefit of the proposal yet, except the troublesome I have to handle with in practice. I have to disable this feature, and don’t allow any security property setting, which is not easy to me once an editable property is introduced. Not to mention the performance impact. I don’t want to block this proposal. If there is a wide consensus, please move forward. Xuelei On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 2:59 PM Martin Balao Alonso < ***@***.***> wrote: > Then, please redefine the scope and purpose of this feature. It is just a > part of the solution. Xuelei > > I see it differently. It's a solution for the problem that we think it is > worth addressing from the JDK/JCA perspective. It's not a framework to > assist security providers with their FIPS configuration and certification > process: they will need to implement self-integrity tests, register the > algorithms and algorithm parameters they have certified for a specific > version, and possibly many other requirements. A security provider that > registers non-FIPS approved algorithms will not get a certification > anyways. The problem that we have is with non-FIPS providers that make > available crypto that shouldn't be used. Perhaps I can add a non-goal to > the JEP, if it helps to clarify this confusion. > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/15539#issuecomment-2549828885>, or > unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQSB3EEB6LZ6TNSIEPF3J5L2GCUEDAVCNFSM6AAAAAA4HWWOTGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDKNBZHAZDQOBYGU> > . > You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: > ***@***.***> > ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15539#issuecomment-2549997121
