8225181: KeyStore should have a getAttributes method #6026

wangweij · 2021-10-20T02:08:24Z

Add KeyStore::getAttributes so that one can get the attributes of an entry without retrieving the entry first. This is especially useful for a private key entry which can only be retrieved with a password.

Progress

Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue
Change must be properly reviewed
Change requires a CSR request to be approved

Issues

JDK-8225181: KeyStore should have a getAttributes method
JDK-8275748: KeyStore should have a getAttributes method (CSR)

Reviewers

Sean Mullan (@seanjmullan - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/6026/head:pull/6026
$ git checkout pull/6026

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/6026
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/6026/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 6026

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 6026

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6026.diff

8225181: KeyStore should have a getAttributes method

bridgekeeper · 2021-10-20T02:08:51Z

👋 Welcome back weijun! 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 · 2021-10-20T02:10:58Z

@wangweij 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 · 2021-10-20T02:16:29Z

Webrevs

wangweij · 2021-10-22T00:24:45Z

/csr

openjdk · 2021-10-22T00:25:40Z

@wangweij this pull request will not be integrated until the CSR request JDK-8275748 for issue JDK-8225181 has been approved.

seanjmullan · 2021-10-25T14:34:57Z

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/KeyStore.java

+     *      attributes associated with it, or the attributes are
+     *      not extractable (For example, if the attributes is encrypted
+     *      in a private key entry or a secret key entry).
+     *


I think this would read better if you broke it up into multiple sentences, ex: "an unmodifiable {@code Set} of attributes. The set may be empty if the given alias does not exist, or the alias does exist but there are no attributes associated with it or the attributes are not extractable (for example, the attributes may not be extractable if they are encrypted in a private key or secret key entry)."

You may also want to add a sentence to try the KeyStore$Entry::getAttributes method if there are no attributes.

Did you consider throwing a KeyStoreException if they are not extractable? It would be useful to distinguish that case from an alias that has no attributes.

This is complicated. Theoretically a KeyStore implementation can store some attributes in clear text and some encrypted, and it's probably not possible to know if there exist any encrypted ones before actually decrypting the entry. Maybe I should say "For a PrivateKeyEntry or SecretKeyEntry, some attributes might only be available after the entry is extracted by the getEntry() method. Try calling the entry's getAttributes() method to see if there are any".

Yes, a sentence like that would help. Some suggested tweaks: "For a PrivateKeyEntry or SecretKeyEntry, some attributes may be protected and not available unless the entry is first extracted by the getEntry() method."

I don't think you need the last sentence.

I wonder if someone will interpret this as "after I've called getEntry on a private key, I can get the encrypted attributes through KeyStore::getAttributes". How about something like "and only available through the {@link KeyEntry.getAttributres} method after the entry is extracted"?

New commit pushed. The words are sightly different between in KeyStore and KeyStoreSpi. CSR updated as well.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/KeyStoreSpi.java

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/KeyStore.java

seanjmullan · 2021-11-02T15:12:19Z

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/KeyStore.java

     *
     * @param alias the alias name
     * @return an unmodifiable {@code Set} of attributes, possibly empty
     *      if the given alias does not exist, or there is no


s/is no/are no/

seanjmullan · 2021-11-02T15:18:10Z

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/KeyStore.java

     * The default implementation returns an empty {@code Set}.
     *
     * @param alias the alias name
     * @return an unmodifiable {@code Set} of attributes, possibly empty


If the alias does not exist, then is it definitely always empty? I think the word "possibly" here may be a bit misleading. Maybe reword this as:
"an unmodifiable {@code Set} of attributes." This set is empty if the given alias does not exist or there are no attributes associated with the alias. This set may also be empty for PrivateKeyEntry or SecretKeyEntry entries that contain protected attributes and are only available through the ... "

Updated as suggested. CSR updated as well.

seanjmullan · 2021-11-04T13:21:19Z

src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/KeyStore.java

+     * Retrieves the attributes associated with the given alias.
+     *
+     * @implSpec
+     * The default implementation returns an empty {@code Set}.


Would it make more sense for the default impl to throw UnsupportedOperationException or maybe call getEntry(alias, null)? Otherwise, an application cannot know the difference between an alias that has no attributes and an alias that has attributes but is from a KeyStore impl that has not overridden the corresponding Spi method.

The one benefit I can think of to throw a UOE is that the caller can fallback to getEntry(...).getAttributes() when an exception is thrown. However, as far as I know, our PKCS12KeyStore is the only KeyStore implementation that has made use of attributes. Therefore it's still not late for another implementation to start supporting both at the same time. For most of the KeyStore implementations, both ks.getAttributes() and ks.getEntry(...).getAttributes() returning empty seems more consistent.

But we could just override those other implementations to always return an empty Set. I would prefer if an application could distinguish between these two cases w/o knowing whether the underlying implementation supports attributes or not.

wangweij · 2021-11-04T19:31:09Z

New commit pushed. Typo, I meant "refine".

wangweij · 2021-12-01T01:11:47Z

New commits pushed. Except for the merge commits, the only change is method spec update to match the text in the approved CSR.

mlbridge · 2021-12-02T00:01:53Z

Mailing list message from Michael StJohns on security-dev:

Hi -

Generically, PKCS12 doesn't require an alias (friendlyName) for a
particular Bag, but does permit it. Which means that
getAttributes(String alias) could fail on a legal PKCS12.? It may be
worthwhile to add a Set<Entry.Attribute> KeyStore::getAttributes(int
bagNumber) method.

Mike

On 11/30/2021 8:15 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:

mlbridge · 2021-12-02T00:01:57Z

Mailing list message from Wei-Jun Wang on security-dev:

My understanding is that Java's PKCS12KeyStore will fabricate an alias string if there is no friendlyName, since every entry inside a KeyStore object must have an alias. I'll take some look tomorrow.

Thanks,
Max

On Nov 30, 2021, at 10:01 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns at comcast.net> wrote:

Hi -

Generically, PKCS12 doesn't require an alias (friendlyName) for a particular Bag, but does permit it. Which means that getAttributes(String alias) could fail on a legal PKCS12. It may be worthwhile to add a Set<Entry.Attribute> KeyStore::getAttributes(int bagNumber) method.

Mike

On 11/30/2021 8:15 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:

mlbridge · 2021-12-02T00:01:59Z

Mailing list message from Michael StJohns on security-dev:

On 11/30/2021 10:07 PM, Wei-Jun Wang wrote:

My understanding is that Java's PKCS12KeyStore will fabricate an alias string if there is no friendlyName, since every entry inside a KeyStore object must have an alias. I'll take some look tomorrow.

Ah - I see it now in PKCS12KeyStore - it assigns an "unfriendlyName" as
an alias if "friendlyName" is missing - basically "0", "1", etc.

Thanks - Mike

Thanks,
Max

On Nov 30, 2021, at 10:01 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns at comcast.net> wrote:

Hi -

Generically, PKCS12 doesn't require an alias (friendlyName) for a particular Bag, but does permit it. Which means that getAttributes(String alias) could fail on a legal PKCS12. It may be worthwhile to add a Set<Entry.Attribute> KeyStore::getAttributes(int bagNumber) method.

Mike

On 11/30/2021 8:15 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:

openjdk · 2021-12-03T17:44:55Z

@wangweij 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:

8225181: KeyStore should have a getAttributes method

Reviewed-by: 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 75 new commits pushed to the master branch:

678ac58: 8278240: ProblemList containers/docker/TestJcmd.java on linux-aarch64
01cb2b9: 8277529: SIGSEGV in C2 CompilerThread Node::rematerialize() compiling Packet::readUnsignedTrint
660f21a: 8278119: ProblemList few headful test failing in macosx12-aarch64 system
2e30fa9: 8278171: [vectorapi] Mask incorrectly computed for zero extending cast
fbf096e: 8251400: Fix incorrect addition of library to test in JDK-8237858
0a09092: 8268288: jdk/jfr/api/consumer/streaming/TestOutOfProcessMigration.java fails with "Error: ShouldNotReachHere()"
0d938ce: 8278172: java/nio/channels/FileChannel/BlockDeviceSize.java should only run on Linux
0e7b6bc: 8278141: LIR_OpLoadKlass::_info shadows the field of the same name from LIR_Op
53a4342: 8278137: JFR: PrettyWriter uses incorrect year specifier
f723779: 8278079: C2: expand_dtrace_alloc_probe doesn't take effect in macro.cpp
... and 65 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/7049c13cf4bf4cdfcd0c8f0fa96bf4c3748ae1e7...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.

wangweij · 2021-12-03T18:50:20Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2021-12-03T18:52:30Z

Going to push as commit a729a70.
Since your change was applied there have been 77 commits pushed to the master branch:

38f525e: 8275821: Optimize random number generators developed in JDK-8248862 using Math.unsignedMultiplyHigh()
780b8b1: 8278179: Enable all doclint warnings for build of java.naming
678ac58: 8278240: ProblemList containers/docker/TestJcmd.java on linux-aarch64
01cb2b9: 8277529: SIGSEGV in C2 CompilerThread Node::rematerialize() compiling Packet::readUnsignedTrint
660f21a: 8278119: ProblemList few headful test failing in macosx12-aarch64 system
2e30fa9: 8278171: [vectorapi] Mask incorrectly computed for zero extending cast
fbf096e: 8251400: Fix incorrect addition of library to test in JDK-8237858
0a09092: 8268288: jdk/jfr/api/consumer/streaming/TestOutOfProcessMigration.java fails with "Error: ShouldNotReachHere()"
0d938ce: 8278172: java/nio/channels/FileChannel/BlockDeviceSize.java should only run on Linux
0e7b6bc: 8278141: LIR_OpLoadKlass::_info shadows the field of the same name from LIR_Op
... and 67 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/7049c13cf4bf4cdfcd0c8f0fa96bf4c3748ae1e7...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2021-12-03T18:52:55Z

@wangweij Pushed as commit a729a70.

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

8225181: KeyStore should have a getAttributes method

86bbe87

8225181: KeyStore should have a getAttributes method

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Oct 20, 2021

openjdk bot added the security security-dev@openjdk.org label Oct 20, 2021

openjdk bot added the csr Pull request needs approved CSR before integration label Oct 22, 2021

seanjmullan reviewed Oct 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

clarification on protected attributes

7238e78

seanjmullan reviewed Nov 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

more clear and precise spec

aaaa614

seanjmullan reviewed Nov 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

redine spec

901bdf8

openjdk bot removed the csr Pull request needs approved CSR before integration label Nov 30, 2021

wangweij added 3 commits November 30, 2021 20:05

Merge branch 'master' into 8225181

baa5957

Merge branch 'master' into 8225181

f9c8e11

final spec change

702168d

seanjmullan approved these changes Dec 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Dec 3, 2021

openjdk bot closed this Dec 3, 2021

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, 2021

wangweij deleted the 8225181 branch December 6, 2021 18:04

8225181: KeyStore should have a getAttributes method #6026

8225181: KeyStore should have a getAttributes method #6026

Uh oh!

Conversation

wangweij commented Oct 20, 2021 • edited by openjdk bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Progress

Issues

Reviewers

Reviewing

Uh oh!

bridgekeeper bot commented Oct 20, 2021

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Oct 20, 2021

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Oct 20, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Webrevs

Uh oh!

wangweij commented Oct 22, 2021

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Oct 22, 2021

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wangweij Nov 3, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wangweij commented Nov 4, 2021

Uh oh!

wangweij commented Dec 1, 2021

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Dec 2, 2021

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Dec 2, 2021

Uh oh!

mlbridge bot commented Dec 2, 2021

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2021

Uh oh!

wangweij commented Dec 3, 2021

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2021

Uh oh!

openjdk bot commented Dec 3, 2021

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

wangweij commented Oct 20, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Oct 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

wangweij Nov 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading