On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 19:04:20 GMT, Artur Barashev <abaras...@openjdk.org> wrote:

> To avoid any user confusion, we should block signature scheme names to be 
> used with `CertificateSignature` algorithm constraints usage. For example, 
> `RSASSA-PSS` certificate signature algorithm corresponds to multiple 
> signature scheme names and blocking one of those signature scheme with 
> `CertificateSignature` usage directive won't block `RSASSA-PSS` certificate 
> signature because other rsa_pss_* signature schemes still will be allowed. We 
> should direct users to use certificate signature algorithm with 
> `CertificateSignature` usage directive. For example:
> 
> - To be blocked: "rsa_pss_pss_sha256 usage CertificateSignature"
> - To be allowed: `RSASSA-PSS usage CertificateSignature` or `RSA usage 
> CertificateSignature`

test/jdk/sun/security/ssl/SignatureScheme/BlockSignatureSchemesForCert.java 
line 46:

> 44:                 "rsa_pss_pss_sha256 usage CertificateSignature");
> 45: 
> 46:         runAndCheckException(

Minor: could you please make it `Utils.runAndCheckException` if there are going 
to be changes? Not worth another commit on it's own, but would improve the 
readability imo

test/jdk/sun/security/ssl/SignatureScheme/BlockSignatureSchemesForCert.java 
line 49:

> 47:                 () -> new BlockSignatureSchemesForCert().run(),
> 48:                 e -> {
> 49:                     assertTrue(e instanceof ExceptionInInitializerError);

nit: Do you think this might be a bit easier to read? 

Suggestion:

                    assertTrue(e instanceof ExceptionInInitializerError);
                    assertTrue(e.getCause() instanceof 
IllegalArgumentException);
                    assertEquals(e.getCause().getMessage(),
                            "Can't use signature scheme names with "
                            + "CertificateSignature usage constraint");

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26970#discussion_r2307485228
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26970#discussion_r2307586777

Reply via email to