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

8281628: KeyAgreement : generateSecret intermittently not resetting #7665

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

wangweij
Copy link
Contributor

@wangweij wangweij commented Mar 2, 2022

The comment said "pad it w/ leading 0s". So let's pad it.


Progress

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

Issue

  • JDK-8281628: KeyAgreement : generateSecret intermittently not resetting

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7665/head:pull/7665
$ git checkout pull/7665

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/7665
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/7665/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 7665

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 7665

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7665.diff

8281628: KeyAgreement : generateSecret intermittently not resetting
@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Mar 2, 2022

👋 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
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 2, 2022

@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.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the security label Mar 2, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot added the rfr label Mar 2, 2022
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Mar 2, 2022

Webrevs

@@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ protected int engineGenerateSecret(byte[] sharedSecret, int offset)
} else {
// Array too short, pad it w/ leading 0s
if (secret.length < expectedLen) {
Arrays.fill(sharedSecret, offset, offset + (expectedLen - secret.length), (byte)0);

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: longer than 80 chars?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@wangweij wangweij Mar 2, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll wrap it.

* @test
* @bug 8281628
* @library /test/lib
* @summary KeyAgreement : generateSecret intermittently not resetting

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: describe the fix instead of just using the bug synopsis.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@wangweij wangweij Mar 2, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK.

aliceSecret[0] = 0;
bobSecret[0] = 1;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Instead of only the first byte difference, would it be easier to trigger the bug with completely different buffer value, say FFFFFF vs 000000?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@wangweij wangweij Mar 2, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe not. When the generated secret is shorter, the padded bytes are always at the beginning.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

With a bigger buffer, i.e. say 80-byte long, instead of 64-byte, I'd expect a difference and higher reproducibility...

Copy link
Contributor Author

@wangweij wangweij Mar 2, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

After n = generateSecret(secret, offset) is called, only n bytes from offset should be touched, and in this case n is 64. Even if you allocate 80 bytes of data, we should not compare those after the 64th byte.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@wangweij wangweij Mar 2, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But you remind me I should not take it for granted that the return value is always 64 and it should be checked as well. A new commit pushed.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, I see, I confused the actual length with the buffer length. In the case where the generated bytes are shorter, the difference is only one byte, so setting other bytes do not matter.

Copy link

@valeriepeng valeriepeng left a comment

Changes look good.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 2, 2022

@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:

8281628: KeyAgreement : generateSecret intermittently not resetting

Reviewed-by: valeriep

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 34 new commits pushed to the master branch:

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 Mar 2, 2022
@wangweij
Copy link
Contributor Author

wangweij commented Mar 3, 2022

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 3, 2022

Going to push as commit 1485883.
Since your change was applied there have been 34 commits pushed to the master branch:

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated label Mar 3, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Mar 3, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready rfr labels Mar 3, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Mar 3, 2022

@wangweij Pushed as commit 1485883.

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

@wangweij wangweij deleted the 8281628 branch Mar 5, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
integrated security
2 participants