Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8311902: Concurrency regression in the PBKDF2 key impl of SunJCE provider #14859

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

valeriepeng
Copy link

@valeriepeng valeriepeng commented Jul 13, 2023

This change adds back the Reference.ReachabilityFence(Object) call removed by JDK-8301553.

Please help review.
Thanks!
Valerie


Progress

  • Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

  • JDK-8311902: Concurrency regression in the PBKDF2 key impl of SunJCE provider (Bug - P2)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/14859/head:pull/14859
$ git checkout pull/14859

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/14859
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/14859/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 14859

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 14859

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14859.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Jul 13, 2023

👋 Welcome back valeriep! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jul 13, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jul 13, 2023

@valeriepeng The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • security

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the security security-dev@openjdk.org label Jul 13, 2023
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Jul 13, 2023

Webrevs

Copy link
Contributor

@ascarpino ascarpino left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jul 13, 2023

@valeriepeng This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8311902: Concurrency regression in the PBKDF2 key impl of SunJCE provider

Reviewed-by: ascarpino, xuelei, mullan

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 71 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • b4dce0d: 8310814: Clarify the targetName parameter of Lookup::findClass
  • 9905f75: 8311040: JFR: RecordedThread::getOSThreadId() should return -1 if thread is virtual
  • 1dfb0fb: 8311188: Simplify and modernize equals and hashCode in java.text
  • 1fc726a: 8312163: Crash in dominance check when compiling unnamed patterns
  • b20dc1e: 8310629: java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/OCSP/OCSPTimeout.java fails with RuntimeException Server not ready
  • 4b9ec82: 8310355: Move the stub test from initialize_final_stubs() to test/hotspot/gtest
  • 8ec136e: 8312072: Deprecate for removal the -Xnoagent option
  • fbe51e3: 8312127: FileDescriptor.sync should temporarily increase parallelism
  • 201e3bc: 8291065: Creating a VarHandle for a static field triggers class initialization
  • a53345a: 8287061: Support for rematerializing scalar replaced objects participating in allocation merges
  • ... and 61 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/15195e6018c104cbeca0f387ae18bff106792908...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jul 13, 2023
Copy link
Member

@XueleiFan XueleiFan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks good to me to rollback to previous behaviors. I was just wondering, if the use of key in other methods, like hashCode()/equals(), has the similar issue? Thanks!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe you also want to revert the changes made to getPassword().

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I will do that.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also think the change which moved the registering of the Cleaner outside the finally block in the constructor is not correct, as the passwd is no longer zero-ed out if the code after that throws an Exception.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Per my reading of the code. the cleaner is only used when the PBKDF2 key constructor succeeds. If an exception occurred, then the passwd cleanup is handled by the if (key == null) condition in the finally block.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, took another closer look at the code and you are right. So, never mind this comment.

@valeriepeng
Copy link
Author

It looks good to me to rollback to previous behaviors. I was just wondering, if the use of key in other methods, like hashCode()/equals(), has the similar issue? Thanks!

For the usage of hashCode()/equals(), there should be strong reference to the key object for the usage scenarios I'd think. Thus, probably not an issue?

@XueleiFan
Copy link
Member

It looks good to me to rollback to previous behaviors. I was just wondering, if the use of key in other methods, like hashCode()/equals(), has the similar issue? Thanks!

For the usage of hashCode()/equals(), there should be strong reference to the key object for the usage scenarios I'd think. Thus, probably not an issue?

Yes, it makes sense to me.

@XueleiFan
Copy link
Member

XueleiFan commented Jul 14, 2023

It looks good to me to rollback to previous behaviors. I was just wondering, if the use of key in other methods, like hashCode()/equals(), has the similar issue? Thanks!

For the usage of hashCode()/equals(), there should be strong reference to the key object for the usage scenarios I'd think. Thus, probably not an issue?

Yes, it makes sense to me.

I may reply too quickly to get the idea. Why you think there will be strong reference to the key object for hashCode()/equals(), but not for getEncoded()? I did not get the idea.

@valeriepeng
Copy link
Author

It looks good to me to rollback to previous behaviors. I was just wondering, if the use of key in other methods, like hashCode()/equals(), has the similar issue? Thanks!

For the usage of hashCode()/equals(), there should be strong reference to the key object for the usage scenarios I'd think. Thus, probably not an issue?

Yes, it makes sense to me.

I may reply too quickly to get the idea. Why you think there will be strong reference to the key object for hashCode()/equals(), but not for getEncoded()? I did not get the idea.

hashCode()/equals() are normally used when objects are still around, e.g. used in hash map. As for getEncoded(), callers may just want to retrieve the bytes and not keep the Key object.
After some internal discussion, I am inclined to include all methods including the hashCode(), equals() into this reachabilityFence() change for the sake of consistency.

Copy link
Member

@XueleiFan XueleiFan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have no more comments. Thanks!

Copy link
Member

@seanjmullan seanjmullan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. I think you should file a follow-on issue to make similar changes to DESKey, DESedeKey, PBEKey and other security classes that use Cleaner.

@valeriepeng
Copy link
Author

Yes, I do plan a follow-on issue to apply this to other security classes which use Cleaner...
Thanks all for the review and comments~

@valeriepeng
Copy link
Author

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jul 18, 2023

Going to push as commit 28c4d19.
Since your change was applied there have been 83 commits pushed to the master branch:

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jul 18, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Jul 18, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Jul 18, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jul 18, 2023

@valeriepeng Pushed as commit 28c4d19.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
integrated Pull request has been integrated security security-dev@openjdk.org
4 participants