[8u] RFR 8080462: Update SunPKCS11 provider with PKCS11 v2.40 support

[Andrew Haley]

On 20/08/2020 18:20, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> On 17:26 Wed 19 Aug     , Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/5/20 11:54 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>>> I didn't go further with the review of this so far, because
>>>> JDK-8144539 is one of the outstanding test backports for the
>>>> SQLite patch as well. I intend to return to that bug trail
>>>> shortly, and we can reconsider both patches once the test
>>>> backports are resolved.
>>>
>>> I believe that 8144539 should not be a blocker for 8080462 because:
>>> the overlap/conflict between them does not appear to be fundamental
>>> -and has been addressed in the current backport proposal-; 8144539
>>> does not look like a trivial backport -at least at first glance,
>>> given the number of files affected-; and, 8144539 does not seem to
>>> have the same priority than 8080462 -so a low priority backport is
>>> currently blocking a high priority one-. Looks to me that 8144539 is
>>> not even required for compatibility between JDKs, but 8080462
>>> certainly is.
>>
>> We can't wait any longer for this. Martin, please feel free to commit
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbalao/webrevs/8080462/8080462.8u.jdk.webrev.01/
>
> I'm working on the dependencies for this right now. A few days is
> hardly going to matter.
>
> I'll then review Martin's fix.

It has already been reviewed; it doesn't need another one. As Martin
explained, we have a case of priority inversion here, where an
important fix with customer need is blocked by a "wouldn't it be
nice..." test fix, which doesn't make any sense.

Martin may, of course, wait for 8144539 if he wishes.

-- 
Andrew Haley  (he/him)
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
https://keybase.io/andrewhaley
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671