RFR: 8315487: Security Providers Filter [v17]

[Xue-Lei Andrew Fan]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:57:02 GMT, Martin Balao <mbalao at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> In addition to the goals, scope, motivation, specification and requirement notes in [JDK-8315487](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315487), we would like to describe the most relevant decisions taken during the implementation of this enhancement. These notes are organized by feature, may encompass more than one file or code segment, and are aimed to provide a high-level view of this PR.
>> 
>> ## ProvidersFilter
>> 
>> ### Filter construction (parser)
>> 
>> The providers filter is constructed from a string value, taken from either a system or a security property with name "jdk.security.providers.filter". This process occurs at sun.security.jca.ProvidersFilter class —simply referred as ProvidersFilter onward— static initialization. Thus, changes to the filter's overridable property are not effective afterwards and no assumptions should be made regarding when this class gets initialized.
>> 
>> The filter's string value is processed with a custom parser of order 'n', being 'n' the number of characters. The parser, represented by the ProvidersFilter.Parser class, can be characterized as a Deterministic Finite Automaton (DFA). The ProvidersFilter.Parser::parse method is the starting point to get characters from the filter's string value and generate state transitions in the parser's internal state-machine. See ProvidersFilter.Parser::nextState for more details about the parser's states and both valid and invalid transitions. The ParsingState enum defines valid parser states and Transition the reasons to move between states. If a filter string cannot be parsed, a ProvidersFilter.ParserException exception is thrown, and turned into an unchecked IllegalArgumentException in the ProvidersFilter.Filter constructor.
>> 
>> While we analyzed —and even tried, at early stages of the development— the use of regular expressions for filter parsing, we discarded the approach in order to get maximum performance, support a more advanced syntax and have flexibility for further extensions in the future.
>> 
>> ### Filter (structure and behavior)
>> 
>> A filter is represented by the ProvidersFilter.Filter class. It consists of an ordered list of rules, returned by the parser, that represents filter patterns from left to right (see the filter syntax for reference). At the end of this list, a match-all and deny rule is added for default behavior. When a service is evaluated against the filter, each filter rule is checked in the ProvidersFilter.Filter::apply method. The rule makes an all...
>
> Martin Balao has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Add a debug message to inform the Filter property value read.
>   
>   See more in https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/security-dev/2024-October/041800.html
>   
>   Co-authored-by: Martin Balao Alonso <mbalao at redhat.com>
>   Co-authored-by: Francisco Ferrari Bihurriet <fferrari at redhat.com>

Please make a clarification in the JEP.  FIPS is just a case we used to
talk about how the feature could be used in practice.


I did not see the benefit of the proposal yet, except the troublesome I
have to handle with in practice.  I have to disable this feature, and don’t
allow any security property setting, which is not easy to me once an
editable property is introduced.  Not to mention the performance impact.

I don’t want to block this proposal.  If there is a wide consensus, please
move forward.

Xuelei

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 2:59 PM Martin Balao Alonso <
***@***.***> wrote:

> Then, please redefine the scope and purpose of this feature. It is just a
> part of the solution. Xuelei
>
> I see it differently. It's a solution for the problem that we think it is
> worth addressing from the JDK/JCA perspective. It's not a framework to
> assist security providers with their FIPS configuration and certification
> process: they will need to implement self-integrity tests, register the
> algorithms and algorithm parameters they have certified for a specific
> version, and possibly many other requirements. A security provider that
> registers non-FIPS approved algorithms will not get a certification
> anyways. The problem that we have is with non-FIPS providers that make
> available crypto that shouldn't be used. Perhaps I can add a non-goal to
> the JEP, if it helps to clarify this confusion.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/15539#issuecomment-2549828885>, or
> unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQSB3EEB6LZ6TNSIEPF3J5L2GCUEDAVCNFSM6AAAAAA4HWWOTGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDKNBZHAZDQOBYGU>
> .
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15539#issuecomment-2549997121