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

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

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

@ascarpino
Copy link
Contributor

@ascarpino ascarpino commented Dec 2, 2020

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

Download

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

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Dec 2, 2020

👋 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 openjdk bot added the rfr label Dec 2, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 2, 2020

@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.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the security label Dec 2, 2020
@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Dec 2, 2020

Webrevs

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

@XueleiFan XueleiFan Dec 2, 2020

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

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ascarpino ascarpino Dec 2, 2020

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

Copy link
Member

@XueleiFan XueleiFan Dec 2, 2020

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ascarpino ascarpino Dec 2, 2020

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..

Copy link
Member

@XueleiFan XueleiFan Dec 3, 2020

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

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 2, 2020

@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.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready label Dec 2, 2020
@ascarpino
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ascarpino ascarpino commented Dec 3, 2020

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Dec 3, 2020
@openjdk openjdk bot added integrated and removed ready rfr labels Dec 3, 2020
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2020

@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 ascarpino deleted the tkf branch Dec 8, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
2 participants