[8u] RFR 8044500: [1/2] Add kinit options and krb5.conf flags that allow users to obtain renewable tickets and specify ticket lifetimes

[Verghese, Clive]

Thank you Max for clarifying and thank you Volker for reviewing. 

Regards,
Clive Verghese


On 1/9/20, 12:29 AM, "jdk8u-dev on behalf of Volker Simonis" <jdk8u-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net on behalf of volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:

    Hi Max,
    
    thanks a lot for the background information. That definitely helps and
    makes the changes in the test command line arguments clear.
    
    No more objections from me. Reviewed.
    
    Best regards,
    Volker
    
    
    Weijun Wang <weijun.wang at oracle.com> schrieb am Do., 9. Jan. 2020, 04:24:
    
    > Some explanations of the name provider in KDC.java:
    >
    > Most tests in krb5/auto needs to treat any host name as 127.0.0.1. Until
    > JDK 8, I used an inner class KDC$KDCNameService to do this. It was
    > specified in META-INF/services and turned on with the
    > -Dsun.net.spi.nameservice.provider.1=ns,mock system property in each test.
    >
    > In JDK 9, JDK-8134577 introduced a /etc/hosts-style file TestHosts in the
    > same directory. It needs to be copied to the working directory with "@run
    > main jdk.test.lib.FileInstaller TestHosts TestHosts" and then enabled with
    > -Djdk.net.hosts.file=TestHosts.
    >
    > Hope this helps.
    >
    > --Max
    >
    > > On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:48 AM, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    > >
    > > The difference in the "test/sun/security/krb5/auto/KDC.java" are still
    > > confusing but that's obviously caused by the dowport of 8187218 which
    > > already brought in a much newer version of that test. I'm only
    > > wondering if the Tier1&Tier2 tests you've run include the KDC.java
    > > test (or if you've run it manually otherwise). If it passes I think
    > > the current version is fine.
    > >
    > > A final point are the additional test arguments
    > > "-Dsun.net.spi.nameservice.provider.1=ns,mock" for
    > > "test/sun/security/krb5/auto/Renewal.java". Are they required in order
    > > to make the test work in jdk8? And the same question like for the
    > > previous test: is it part of Tier1&Tier2 or did you run it manually
    > > and does it pass?
    > >
    > > So if the included tests pass, I'm fine with this downport and you can
    > > consider it reviewed (if nothing exceptional happens, I should even be
    > > an "official" JDK 8 Updates Reviewer by the end of today :)
    > >
    > > Best regards,
    > > Volker
    > >
    > >
    > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 12:00 AM Hohensee, Paul <hohensee at amazon.com>
    > wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Ping for the new year. :)
    > >>
    > >> Paul
    > >>
    > >> On 12/2/19, 2:07 PM, "jdk8u-dev on behalf of Hohensee, Paul" <
    > jdk8u-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net on behalf of hohensee at amazon.com>
    > wrote:
    > >>
    > >>    Ping for another review pls.
    > >>
    > >>    Thanks,
    > >>    Paul
    > >>
    > >>    On 11/18/19, 3:40 PM, "jdk8u-dev on behalf of Hohensee, Paul" <
    > jdk8u-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net on behalf of hohensee at amazon.com>
    > wrote:
    > >>
    > >>        Lgtm, but would another reviewer also take a look please?
    > >>
    > >>        Thanks,
    > >>
    > >>        Paul
    > >>
    > >>        On 11/8/19, 11:39 AM, "jdk8u-dev on behalf of Verghese, Clive" <
    > jdk8u-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net on behalf of verghese at amazon.com>
    > wrote:
    > >>
    > >>            Hi,
    > >>
    > >>            Requesting review for backport of JDK-8044500,
    > >>
    > >>            JBS Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044500
    > >>            Original Change :
    > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/fb5752b152d9
    > >>            Webrev :
    > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alvdavi/webrevs/8044500/webrev.8u.00/
    > >>
    > >>            This is backport is a dependency for backporting JDK-8186576.
    > >>
    > >>            Parts of this backport have already been backported into
    > JDK-8044500.
    > >>            The patch did not apply cleanly and the major difference were
    > >>
    > >>              *   Variable name changes in KDC.java
    > >>              *   Imports in Config.java
    > >>
    > >>            Both Tier1 and Tier2 tests in Linux x64.
    > >>
    > >>            Regards,
    > >>            Clive Verghese
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    >
    >