RFR: 8314063 : The socket is not closed in Connection::createSocket when the handshake failed for LDAP connection [v7]

[Aleksei Efimov]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 02:15:06 GMT, Weibing Xiao <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please refer to JDK-8314063.
>> 
>> The failure scenario is due to the setting of connection timeout. It is either too small or not an optimal value for the system. When the client tries to connect to the server with LDAPs protocol. It requires the handshake after the socket is created and connected, but it fails due to connection timeout and leaves the socket open. It is not closed properly due to the exception handling in the JDK code.
>> 
>> The change is adding a try/catch block and closing the socket in the catch block,  and the format of the code got changed consequently.
>
> Weibing Xiao has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   refactor the code and test cases

test/jdk/com/sun/jndi/ldap/LdapSSLHandshakeFailureTest.java line 84:

> 82:             }
> 83:         }
> 84:         TestServer server = new TestServer( serverSlowDown );

The server instance can be used in try-with-resouces:

        try (TestServer server = new TestServer(serverSlowDown)) {
            server.start();
            env.put(Context.PROVIDER_URL, URIBuilder.newBuilder()
                    .scheme("ldaps")
                    .loopback()
                    .port(server.getPortNumber())
                    .buildUnchecked().toString());

test/jdk/com/sun/jndi/ldap/LdapSSLHandshakeFailureTest.java line 94:

> 92:                 .buildUnchecked().toString());
> 93:         if (args.length == 2 &&
> 94:                 args[0].contains("LdapSSLHandshakeFailureTest")) {

This `arg[0]` check is done twice in the test - it can be save to a boolean variable:

boolean hasCustomSocketFactory = args[0]
        .equals("LdapSSLHandshakeFailureTest$CustomSocketFactory");

and then used to the checks

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15294#discussion_r1300088395
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15294#discussion_r1300086412