8026976: ECParameters, Point does not match field size #1568

ascarpino · 2020-12-02T17:08:11Z

I need a code review for this small code change. The code did not run the data through the DER decoding class before setting it to the point when the SunPKCS11 configuration had UseEcX963Encoding set to false.

Progress

Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue
Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

JDK-8026976: ECParameters, Point does not match field size

Reviewers

Xue-Lei Andrew Fan (@XueleiFan - Reviewer)

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/1568/head:pull/1568
$ git checkout pull/1568

bridgekeeper · 2020-12-02T17:08:55Z

👋 Welcome back ascarpino! 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 · 2020-12-02T17:10:09Z

@ascarpino 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.

mlbridge · 2020-12-02T17:13:00Z

Webrevs

01: Full - Incremental (60a27ca)
00: Full (2b939a8)

XueleiFan · 2020-12-02T17:34:11Z

src/jdk.crypto.cryptoki/share/classes/sun/security/pkcs11/P11ECKeyFactory.java

+                if (!token.config.getUseEcX963Encoding()) {
+                    point = decodePoint(new DerValue(attributes[0].getByteArray()).getOctetString(), params.getCurve());
+                } else {
+                    point = decodePoint(attributes[0].getByteArray(), params.getCurve());
+                }


You could save a "!" operation in 299 if switch line 302 and line 300.

I only used "!" for consistency with existing usage in P11Key.java:1080. Is there a reason to avoid "!" other than maybe readability?

Save a operation could get a little bit performance. Comparing to "if (!a)", "if (a)" is easier to read to me, and save me a cycle to compute the "!". Anyway, not a big concern of mine, you can leave it as is if you prefer the "if (!a)" style.

Just to finish up the thought. The assembly instructions are the same using if(!a) or if(a). The difference would be how the code is setup during compile time and I believe that would be the same speed as well..

Thank you for the check. It looks good to me and I have no more comment.

openjdk · 2020-12-02T17:36:53Z

@ascarpino 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:

8026976: ECParameters, Point does not match field size

Reviewed-by: xuelei

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 45 new commits pushed to the master branch:

70517c8: 8257642: CipherByteBufferOverwriteTest copyright issue
e836396: 8257436: [aarch64] Regressions in ArrayCopyUnalignedDst.testByte/testChar for 65-78 bytes when UseSIMDForMemoryOps is on
b170c83: 8257591: Remove suppression of record preview related warnings in java.lang
66a2e70: 8255845: Memory leak in imageFile.cpp
fa58671: 8257020: [JVMCI] enable a JVMCICompiler to specify which GCs it supports
129c377: 8257594: C2 compiled checkcast of non-null object triggers endless deoptimization/recompilation cycle
e4497c9: 8256718: Obsolete the long term deprecated and aliased Trace flags
4a267f1: 8244847: Linux/PPC: runtime/CompressedOops/CompressedClassPointers: smallHeapTest fails
b44a329: 8256864: [windows] Improve tracing for mapping errors
ae1eb28: 8257604: JNI_ArgumentPusherVaArg leaks valist
... and 35 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/29d90b952cfdfb05903fa6932a7930852aaaab5c...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.

ascarpino · 2020-12-03T18:05:26Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2020-12-03T18:06:24Z

@ascarpino Since your change was applied there have been 47 commits pushed to the master branch:

d3f3c32: 8255742: PrintInlining as compiler directive doesn't print virtual calls
6c9482e: 8257561: Some code is not vectorized after 8251925 and 8250607
70517c8: 8257642: CipherByteBufferOverwriteTest copyright issue
e836396: 8257436: [aarch64] Regressions in ArrayCopyUnalignedDst.testByte/testChar for 65-78 bytes when UseSIMDForMemoryOps is on
b170c83: 8257591: Remove suppression of record preview related warnings in java.lang
66a2e70: 8255845: Memory leak in imageFile.cpp
fa58671: 8257020: [JVMCI] enable a JVMCICompiler to specify which GCs it supports
129c377: 8257594: C2 compiled checkcast of non-null object triggers endless deoptimization/recompilation cycle
e4497c9: 8256718: Obsolete the long term deprecated and aliased Trace flags
4a267f1: 8244847: Linux/PPC: runtime/CompressedOops/CompressedClassPointers: smallHeapTest fails
... and 37 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/29d90b952cfdfb05903fa6932a7930852aaaab5c...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 55f5542.

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

ascarpino added 2 commits December 1, 2020 13:09

Allow use of ASN.1 for publickeyspec

d9e9844

Remove from problemlist

2b939a8

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Dec 2, 2020

openjdk bot added the security security-dev@openjdk.org label Dec 2, 2020

XueleiFan approved these changes Dec 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Dec 2, 2020

copyright date

60a27ca

XueleiFan approved these changes Dec 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot closed this Dec 3, 2020

openjdk bot added integrated Pull request has been integrated and removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Dec 3, 2020

ascarpino deleted the tkf branch December 8, 2020 16:27

8026976: ECParameters, Point does not match field size #1568

8026976: ECParameters, Point does not match field size #1568

ascarpino commented Dec 2, 2020 •

edited by openjdk bot

bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 2, 2020

openjdk bot commented Dec 2, 2020

mlbridge bot commented Dec 2, 2020 •

edited

XueleiFan Dec 2, 2020

ascarpino Dec 2, 2020 •

edited

XueleiFan Dec 2, 2020

ascarpino Dec 2, 2020

XueleiFan Dec 3, 2020

openjdk bot commented Dec 2, 2020 •

edited

ascarpino commented Dec 3, 2020

openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2020

8026976: ECParameters, Point does not match field size #1568

8026976: ECParameters, Point does not match field size #1568

Conversation

ascarpino commented Dec 2, 2020 • edited by openjdk bot

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Download

bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 2, 2020

openjdk bot commented Dec 2, 2020

mlbridge bot commented Dec 2, 2020 • edited

Webrevs

XueleiFan Dec 2, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ascarpino Dec 2, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

XueleiFan Dec 2, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ascarpino Dec 2, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

XueleiFan Dec 3, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented Dec 2, 2020 • edited

ascarpino commented Dec 3, 2020

openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2020

ascarpino commented Dec 2, 2020 •

edited by openjdk bot

mlbridge bot commented Dec 2, 2020 •

edited

ascarpino Dec 2, 2020 •

edited

openjdk bot commented Dec 2, 2020 •

edited