RFR: JDK-8347377 : Add validation checks for ICC_Profile header fields [v3]

[Sergey Bylokhov]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 00:22:15 GMT, Harshitha Onkar <honkar at openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> The ICC spec. defines only these 4 intents, so I don't see a problem here.
>> 
>> our own profiles do not strictly follow these specification, so if lcms ignores that we can do the same, especially since we fallback to the "Perceptual intent" https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/13a1775718f329b02cdeb82f9d3f7d878ac5e771/src/java.desktop/share/classes/sun/java2d/cmm/lcms/LCMSTransform.java#L75
>
> @mrserb 
>> Then probably we can use approach similar to 8282577: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/f66070b00d4311c6e3a6fbf38956fa2d5da5fada and try to rely on lcms for validation.
> 
> The cooked approach doesn't work for ICC_Profile header data. In case header data is updated using the cooked approach we run into `IAE- cannot write tag data` for both invalid as well as valid header field values. There are separate LCMS APIs to set header fields `cmsSetHeaderRenderingIntent(..), cmsSetDeviceClass(...)` so I don't think we should be using cooked approach to set header data.
> 
> Additionally, it is more efficient if  these validation checks are added early on rather than process the data, go all the way to native side - LCMS.c  just to return with IAE in case of invalid header data. 
> 
> The cooked approach involves copying over the data to a new profile, writing it to a memory buffer and then loading it back to check for profile correctness. This seems to be a lot of work for header data when simple validation checks in setData() can prevent invalid data.

> "our own profiles do not strictly follow these specification"
> 
> What you are pointing to isn't a profile. It is code that accepts a requested rendering intent. I don't see how it is related.

the new code will be called when loading raw data for a profile, so if that profile was previously accepted and used some default values, the new code will reject it.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23044#discussion_r1915300959