Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
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
8242068: Signed JAR support for RSASSA-PSS and EdDSA #322
8242068: Signed JAR support for RSASSA-PSS and EdDSA #322
Changes from all commits
2d42db1
c40b635
5d455ba
fecf30d
ffaae53
734fd03
bd3a159
251373f
File filter
Jump to
valeriepengOct 15, 2020
With this change, i.e. using a local variable instead of setting the field 'contentInfo', the 'contentInfo' field seems to left unset when contentType equals to ContentInfo.NETSCAPE_CERT_SEQUENCE_OID?
wangweijOct 16, 2020
Author
Contributor
I'll see what the best code is, but I don't like the way contentInfo is assigned twice, once as the whole block and once as the content inside. I'd rather add a
contentInfo = block
in its else if block.valeriepengOct 16, 2020
Right, I also dislike the double assignment. Just making sure that contentInfo is set somewhere.
valeriepengOct 15, 2020
Are you sure that this context specific tag value is implicit? In RFC 6211, some other ASN.1 definition uses IMPLICIT keyword after the [x] which seems to suggest that the default is explicit unless specified. Besides, the layman's guide sec2.3 also states "The keyword [class number] alone is the same as explicit tagging, except when the "module" in which the ASN.1 type is defined has implicit tagging by default." So, it seems that explicit tagging should be the default?
wangweijOct 16, 2020
Author
Contributor
In the formal definition at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6211#appendix-A, you can see
DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS
covers from BEGIN to END. Those explicit IMPLICIT tags you see are CMS ASN.1 definitions, and it looks in its own RFC at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5652#section-12, IMPLICIT and EXPLICIT are always written out.I can confirm both OpenSSL and BC use IMPLICIT.
valeriepengOct 16, 2020
Ah, I see. There is a line about implicit tags as you pointed out. Good~