From serb at openjdk.org  Mon Jun  2 10:06:06 2025
From: serb at openjdk.org (Sergey Bylokhov)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:06:06 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Integrated: 8275303:
 sun/java2d/pipe/InterpolationQualityTest.java fails with D3D basic render
 driver
In-Reply-To: <fXig8j-2KD7cK7E0LEhOszIa1jFdRUGBISnkbXp8Mek=.e7c8ae35-93f0-4b3e-9496-70822e04a528@github.com>
References: <fXig8j-2KD7cK7E0LEhOszIa1jFdRUGBISnkbXp8Mek=.e7c8ae35-93f0-4b3e-9496-70822e04a528@github.com>
Message-ID: <-pOV_yepqCsBE_sSvrlrCo24f_ZwyFFO8u3DA3liM4Q=.13004070-92ca-40cd-b316-e128eeb15473@github.com>

On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 00:00:05 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <serb at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This pull request contains a backport of commit [bc0379ea](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/bc0379ea1a22a2631b49ecd6a331352bec81c1c6) from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
> 
> The commit being backported was authored by Phil Race on 25 May 2022 and was reviewed by Sergey Bylokhov and Prasanta Sadhukhan.
> 
> Thanks!

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: a01bf318
Author:    Sergey Bylokhov <serb at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/commit/a01bf3180fe943be81529408b9208ee992336be1
Stats:     3 lines in 1 file changed: 3 ins; 0 del; 0 mod

8275303: sun/java2d/pipe/InterpolationQualityTest.java fails with D3D basic render driver

Reviewed-by: aph
Backport-of: bc0379ea1a22a2631b49ecd6a331352bec81c1c6

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/523

From dcherepanov at openjdk.org  Mon Jun  2 13:45:58 2025
From: dcherepanov at openjdk.org (Dmitry Cherepanov)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 13:45:58 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Integrated: 8340387: Update OS detection code to recognize
 Windows Server 2025
In-Reply-To: <cI0Nl3tXxR-wkdAmfa9-OXiZPL-lvuEQJvNozmb7QpM=.94af1615-2046-47cb-9ce9-86f40df2d9db@github.com>
References: <cI0Nl3tXxR-wkdAmfa9-OXiZPL-lvuEQJvNozmb7QpM=.94af1615-2046-47cb-9ce9-86f40df2d9db@github.com>
Message-ID: <Y9F82-WK8suZvPkkioIIWLalamWJytIyLj3tvZAGB6g=.d10e8029-6bf3-437b-bf51-01ae7a3633a7@github.com>

On Wed, 21 May 2025 07:47:33 GMT, Dmitry Cherepanov <dcherepanov at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Backport for parity with Oracle.
> 
> Almost clean backport after adjusting paths. The only conflict is in copyright years (in java_props_md.c), applied manually.
> 
> Thanks.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: 6f0f298a
Author:    Dmitry Cherepanov <dcherepanov at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/commit/6f0f298a77e881e1ea7a222240514ae3fc19ade2
Stats:     11 lines in 2 files changed: 8 ins; 0 del; 3 mod

8340387: Update OS detection code to recognize Windows Server 2025

Reviewed-by: phh
Backport-of: 34cddfbedd20d5804cab8044fbc402564e98eb9c

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/655

From gnu.andrew at redhat.com  Mon Jun  2 13:54:13 2025
From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 14:54:13 +0100
Subject: [RAMPDOWN] 8u462 Now in Rampdown Stage
Message-ID: <aD2tBYCM8KP4szmv@rincewind>

8u462 is now in rampdown for release in July 2025.

jdk8u-dev is CLOSED for commits until
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358328 is integrated to begin the
8u472 release cycle.

For critical fixes (i.e. regressions or urgent fixes like tzdata &
cacerts updates) for 8u462, please file a PR against
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u and use jdk8u-critical-request to
obtain approval to push (automatic with the /approval request command
[0]).

[0] https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/SKARA/Pull+Request+Commands#PullRequestCommands-/approval

Thanks,
-- 
Andrew :)
Pronouns: he / him or they / them
Principal Free Java Software Engineer
OpenJDK Package Owner
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222

Please contact via e-mail, not proprietary chat networks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/attachments/20250602/c4a1acb0/signature.asc>

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Mon Jun  2 15:18:10 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 15:18:10 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8328999: Update GIFlib to 5.2.2 [v4]
In-Reply-To: <XaBbDhxhESff9Nb8C_OayxwcN5XyUZ0vqRsqWLVW1Sc=.2cc3f1d8-b371-4e67-abf9-40fcd7242985@github.com>
References: <9ZtnRvABbtHSlYnLBINebgkvpNyoCxJuZ97PZRbfnCM=.02cc0ea5-908c-4542-8d64-a521e01c69fe@github.com>
 <jliD8iIxYwJ42Dbzoi4Uc48U8eqKiIi9WHRIfkhsoXc=.0b71f59a-672a-4dc3-836f-98a2382234d6@github.com>
 <XaBbDhxhESff9Nb8C_OayxwcN5XyUZ0vqRsqWLVW1Sc=.2cc3f1d8-b371-4e67-abf9-40fcd7242985@github.com>
Message-ID: <JLTcbJyFSXxFqQhw7yWjo_mIeCxVxS2S8OcKPbZ_VDI=.c59e7f6f-4a39-4c10-89ce-f8b23e204719@github.com>

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 01:05:55 GMT, Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Andrew John Hughes 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 five additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - Merge remote-tracking branch 'dev/master' into JDK-8328999
>>  - Add missing #endif
>>  - Restore local modifications on Windows to work around missing stdbool.h on VS2010
>>  - Merge remote-tracking branch 'dev/master' into JDK-8328999
>>  - Backport bc8aeb6496b7e86d1f616d4c1b7c26f172c1dd8a
>
> Keep open. Will look after the 8u442 release.

@gnu-andrew Could you move this PR forward, please?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/571#issuecomment-2931213981

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Mon Jun  2 15:54:59 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 15:54:59 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA
 certificates [v2]
In-Reply-To: <MUs4ILDGAjQBe6lx0RosNIf4dGTDwk3_A0Pv-CfZVTg=.36332b2c-0120-47f9-82b7-c6ec1348d76a@github.com>
References: <MazHLoDwQ_XjSCbRbfLQyKP7dh9FmDuIZVkjNceBV8A=.ddb239b6-19d8-40d3-8738-75708638233e@github.com>
 <MUs4ILDGAjQBe6lx0RosNIf4dGTDwk3_A0Pv-CfZVTg=.36332b2c-0120-47f9-82b7-c6ec1348d76a@github.com>
Message-ID: <rXl1ApC1F5TDZnroMcdhfWbHiXHAOJ3Orr6gnTqyH3M=.af0f2a47-c846-4706-a3c1-871413b42206@github.com>

On Mon, 19 May 2025 08:30:43 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Backport of [JDK-8350498](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498) from 11 that removes two non root CA certificates no longer active.
>> 
>> The PR is on top of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/650 (for [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770)) to avoid conflicts, since `CHECKSUM` in `VerifyCACerts.java` is modified by both issues.
>> 
>> Not clean, as file locations have changed between 8 and 11.
>> 
>> Test `VerifyCACerts.java` passes: 
>> 
>> 
>> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
>> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
>> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
>
> Antonio Vieiro has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Missing changes in commit

Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/651#pullrequestreview-2889044064

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Mon Jun  2 16:30:57 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 16:30:57 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA
 certificates
In-Reply-To: <Ll0N0eB18Gsx7yJ7jWOaYCse-5i0obCvHUIJh3mgcl0=.f90f725e-0089-4878-b09f-7670e4b2cd33@github.com>
References: <MazHLoDwQ_XjSCbRbfLQyKP7dh9FmDuIZVkjNceBV8A=.ddb239b6-19d8-40d3-8738-75708638233e@github.com>
 <Ll0N0eB18Gsx7yJ7jWOaYCse-5i0obCvHUIJh3mgcl0=.f90f725e-0089-4878-b09f-7670e4b2cd33@github.com>
Message-ID: <UNfAaKmbOWyEGDvQkwV4G_edS7aT6uiNkCRYRz948Is=.ab65a84e-35ec-425f-9772-892690bbed8e@github.com>

On Mon, 19 May 2025 08:27:24 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Backport of [JDK-8350498](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498) from 11 that removes two non root CA certificates no longer active.
>> 
>> The PR is on top of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/650 (for [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770)) to avoid conflicts, since `CHECKSUM` in `VerifyCACerts.java` is modified by both issues.
>> 
>> Not clean, as file locations have changed between 8 and 11.
>> 
>> Test `VerifyCACerts.java` passes: 
>> 
>> 
>> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
>> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
>> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
>
> Uploaded missing changes and retested. Tests pass.

@vieiro Please move this PR to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u (close this one and open a new one there; sorry for the inconvenience) since jdk8u-dev[ is closed for now](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2025-June/020118.html) and we'd like this to go into the July release.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/651#issuecomment-2931496752

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Mon Jun  2 17:08:58 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 17:08:58 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <NyhFAimdP9Kk142R-ks253Sax-xoOOo7j2lyEDTOdx8=.8be8b2b6-4f67-441d-bb45-442b00540d2a@github.com>
References: <NyhFAimdP9Kk142R-ks253Sax-xoOOo7j2lyEDTOdx8=.8be8b2b6-4f67-441d-bb45-442b00540d2a@github.com>
Message-ID: <hMfM0lhJlcmETjTn9aub_pZziEHEoTjZkdsyuLmZJJk=.7d327db7-00ee-4011-bd98-8e9d30d37c43@github.com>

On Fri, 30 May 2025 18:12:47 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.
> 
> Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
> Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.
> 
> jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.

Please move this one to openjdk/jdk8u since we entered rampdown and it would be good to have in the July release.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/657#issuecomment-2931625905

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 07:27:02 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:27:02 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8303770: Remove Baltimore root certificate
 expiring in May 2025 [v3]
In-Reply-To: <Obydx6hQIuJ-mKDMiK0UYjiomPAAZPAAbIE4ghUEkTI=.fbc2127e-1005-4c2f-99de-2054184b1670@github.com>
References: <mvUPAoFvRw8NU_97_Q4enLtS2PGjJ8ZgP3L0o8etf-o=.3d1f4b29-e292-4dbb-986f-1f211cddb036@github.com>
 <Obydx6hQIuJ-mKDMiK0UYjiomPAAZPAAbIE4ghUEkTI=.fbc2127e-1005-4c2f-99de-2054184b1670@github.com>
Message-ID: <MSNZyh7xyUUgQQQwK9dAU6dcmjBXzeoqkW20hq6YeFg=.043cfeeb-2ae0-4482-9443-d66d19957ce1@github.com>

On Mon, 12 May 2025 15:06:44 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Backport of [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770) from 11.  Mostly clean (certfile location differs from 11).
>> 
>> Test `jdk/test/sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java` passes on `RHEL8, x86_64, gcc8.5.0`.
>
> Antonio Vieiro has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous commits have been removed. Incremental views are not available. The pull request now contains one commit:
> 
>   Backport c0e7aa6c122e88e0d749ac3e8edf2cda9c5f53da

This one moved to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u/pull/72

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/650#issuecomment-2933874704

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 07:27:03 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:27:03 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Withdrawn: 8303770: Remove Baltimore root certificate
 expiring in May 2025
In-Reply-To: <mvUPAoFvRw8NU_97_Q4enLtS2PGjJ8ZgP3L0o8etf-o=.3d1f4b29-e292-4dbb-986f-1f211cddb036@github.com>
References: <mvUPAoFvRw8NU_97_Q4enLtS2PGjJ8ZgP3L0o8etf-o=.3d1f4b29-e292-4dbb-986f-1f211cddb036@github.com>
Message-ID: <t-ZfTOhelHmW7Z3lq3ClN2gZSLjnL7bwSxc_CKY5vXE=.6704a181-d61b-4cde-bf30-74384a29c785@github.com>

On Fri, 9 May 2025 15:11:28 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Backport of [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770) from 11.  Mostly clean (certfile location differs from 11).
> 
> Test `jdk/test/sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java` passes on `RHEL8, x86_64, gcc8.5.0`.

This pull request has been closed without being integrated.

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/650

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 07:29:12 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:29:12 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8303770: Remove Baltimore root certificate expiring in
 May 2025
Message-ID: <I3pe9tZwaNUOHL42m0t2m4lyMsNuWVTw2U4OngbJuMc=.e93ae75d-98e0-40e4-a6fa-9e78e97378df@github.com>

Backport of [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770) from 11.  Mostly clean (certfile location differs from 11).

Test jdk/test/sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java passes on RHEL8, x86_64, gcc8.5.0.

This was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/650 before the rampdown phase started.

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

Commit messages:
 - Backport c0e7aa6c122e88e0d749ac3e8edf2cda9c5f53da

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/72/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u&pr=72&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770
  Stats: 34 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 30 del; 4 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/72.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u.git pull/72/head:pull/72

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/72

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 08:30:00 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 08:30:00 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8303770: Remove Baltimore root certificate expiring
 in May 2025
In-Reply-To: <I3pe9tZwaNUOHL42m0t2m4lyMsNuWVTw2U4OngbJuMc=.e93ae75d-98e0-40e4-a6fa-9e78e97378df@github.com>
References: <I3pe9tZwaNUOHL42m0t2m4lyMsNuWVTw2U4OngbJuMc=.e93ae75d-98e0-40e4-a6fa-9e78e97378df@github.com>
Message-ID: <FMQWD9PtqanN9lbjv0_ln15PJ4K2HN28ZekwhbeOBPk=.4fabe649-86f2-48d5-9457-4e4bc7b23ae5@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:23:05 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Backport of [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770) from 11.  Mostly clean (certfile location differs from 11).
> 
> Test jdk/test/sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java passes on RHEL8, x86_64, gcc8.5.0.
> 
> This was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/650 before the rampdown phase started.

Good.

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

Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/72#pullrequestreview-2891273624

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 08:54:03 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 08:54:03 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA
 certificates
In-Reply-To: <UNfAaKmbOWyEGDvQkwV4G_edS7aT6uiNkCRYRz948Is=.ab65a84e-35ec-425f-9772-892690bbed8e@github.com>
References: <MazHLoDwQ_XjSCbRbfLQyKP7dh9FmDuIZVkjNceBV8A=.ddb239b6-19d8-40d3-8738-75708638233e@github.com>
 <Ll0N0eB18Gsx7yJ7jWOaYCse-5i0obCvHUIJh3mgcl0=.f90f725e-0089-4878-b09f-7670e4b2cd33@github.com>
 <UNfAaKmbOWyEGDvQkwV4G_edS7aT6uiNkCRYRz948Is=.ab65a84e-35ec-425f-9772-892690bbed8e@github.com>
Message-ID: <b3-YA3fpMX1jENVTd-1GhlNkBXw12EpXXEAXdIUZrNU=.8c6989ef-ede1-46f5-b043-382cea7a610d@github.com>

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 16:28:32 GMT, Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Uploaded missing changes and retested. Tests pass.
>
> @vieiro Please move this PR to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u (close this one and open a new one there; sorry for the inconvenience) since jdk8u-dev[ is closed for now](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2025-June/020118.html) and we'd like this to go into the July release.

@jerboaa No worries. Closing this one in favor of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u/pull/73 in 8u. Thanks!

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/651#issuecomment-2934197427

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 08:54:04 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 08:54:04 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Withdrawn: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA
 certificates
In-Reply-To: <MazHLoDwQ_XjSCbRbfLQyKP7dh9FmDuIZVkjNceBV8A=.ddb239b6-19d8-40d3-8738-75708638233e@github.com>
References: <MazHLoDwQ_XjSCbRbfLQyKP7dh9FmDuIZVkjNceBV8A=.ddb239b6-19d8-40d3-8738-75708638233e@github.com>
Message-ID: <lVyMR_QiiGdMcUOIarNYi3JWRS59bbq4GGXUjDJt1as=.e09bcf07-4980-4b98-ad75-87dc481e2e64@github.com>

On Mon, 12 May 2025 14:59:44 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Backport of [JDK-8350498](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498) from 11 that removes two non root CA certificates no longer active.
> 
> The PR is on top of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/650 (for [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770)) to avoid conflicts, since `CHECKSUM` in `VerifyCACerts.java` is modified by both issues.
> 
> Not clean, as file locations have changed between 8 and 11.
> 
> Test `VerifyCACerts.java` passes: 
> 
> 
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java

This pull request has been closed without being integrated.

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/651

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 08:56:05 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 08:56:05 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA certificates
Message-ID: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>

Backport of [JDK-8350498](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498) from 11 that removes two non root CA certificates no longer active.

The PR is on top of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u/pull/72 (for [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770)) to avoid conflicts, since CHECKSUM in VerifyCACerts.java is modified by both issues.

Not clean, as file locations have changed between 8 and 11.

Test VerifyCACerts.java passes (retested in jdk8u):


Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java


Note: This PR was previously filed to 8u-dev ( https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/651 )  and was reviewed there. I've squashed the two commits there for an easier review here (and also rebased on #72 on top of 8u master).

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

Depends on: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/72

Commit messages:
 - Backport 8894d6ad1b83553a5c60af51fd2de2319fd1d6ec

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u&pr=73&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498
  Stats: 236 lines in 7 files changed: 2 ins; 212 del; 22 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u.git pull/73/head:pull/73

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 09:15:54 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (duke)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 09:15:54 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8303770: Remove Baltimore root certificate expiring
 in May 2025
In-Reply-To: <I3pe9tZwaNUOHL42m0t2m4lyMsNuWVTw2U4OngbJuMc=.e93ae75d-98e0-40e4-a6fa-9e78e97378df@github.com>
References: <I3pe9tZwaNUOHL42m0t2m4lyMsNuWVTw2U4OngbJuMc=.e93ae75d-98e0-40e4-a6fa-9e78e97378df@github.com>
Message-ID: <E-AOWtLOEWprvnYTh9LZcnmf_Ujfp08Yrqbx16kUMOQ=.a59afcfb-cd03-4ca2-9251-165c659dda2d@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:23:05 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Backport of [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770) from 11.  Mostly clean (certfile location differs from 11).
> 
> Test jdk/test/sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java passes on RHEL8, x86_64, gcc8.5.0.
> 
> This was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/650 before the rampdown phase started.

@vieiro 
Your change (at version 6f51c79c0c8501bbdfe61e57888594aa54538646) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/72#issuecomment-2934285352

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 09:50:04 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 09:50:04 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] Integrated: 8303770: Remove Baltimore root certificate
 expiring in May 2025
In-Reply-To: <I3pe9tZwaNUOHL42m0t2m4lyMsNuWVTw2U4OngbJuMc=.e93ae75d-98e0-40e4-a6fa-9e78e97378df@github.com>
References: <I3pe9tZwaNUOHL42m0t2m4lyMsNuWVTw2U4OngbJuMc=.e93ae75d-98e0-40e4-a6fa-9e78e97378df@github.com>
Message-ID: <20j4l6o1NaHX3rYyhqCC7d3W7eb65tQZd54vf4XjGmg=.7231790f-c18c-47d9-838e-85930262b379@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:23:05 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Backport of [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770) from 11.  Mostly clean (certfile location differs from 11).
> 
> Test jdk/test/sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java passes on RHEL8, x86_64, gcc8.5.0.
> 
> This was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/650 before the rampdown phase started.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: afd0266e
Author:    Antonio Vieiro <antonio at vieiro.net>
Committer: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/commit/afd0266ef01647ea9cdcb77bb93f46a961872ad6
Stats:     34 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 30 del; 4 mod

8303770: Remove Baltimore root certificate expiring in May 2025

Reviewed-by: sgehwolf
Backport-of: c0e7aa6c122e88e0d749ac3e8edf2cda9c5f53da

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/72

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 09:58:25 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 09:58:25 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA certificates
 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>
References: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>
Message-ID: <YUOIoXdWJcSS5j4Pm80OyYbX7B9xtA87lqfIuQ7eyE0=.720e0354-f961-4a72-9057-627354c0a14d@github.com>

> Backport of [JDK-8350498](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498) from 11 that removes two non root CA certificates no longer active.
> 
> The PR is on top of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u/pull/72 (for [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770)) to avoid conflicts, since CHECKSUM in VerifyCACerts.java is modified by both issues.
> 
> Not clean, as file locations have changed between 8 and 11.
> 
> Test VerifyCACerts.java passes (retested in jdk8u):
> 
> 
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
> 
> 
> Note: This PR was previously filed to 8u-dev ( https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/651 )  and was reviewed there. I've squashed the two commits there for an easier review here (and also rebased on #72 on top of 8u master).

Antonio Vieiro 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.

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73/files/03be664d..03be664d

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u&pr=73&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u&pr=73&range=00-01

  Stats: 0 lines in 0 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 0 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u.git pull/73/head:pull/73

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 10:20:45 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 10:20:45 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA certificates
 [v3]
In-Reply-To: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>
References: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>
Message-ID: <TwsTTbpwaXSdtTOqzUty7jvlHAHzlTW5X4t2TjsBNfo=.dfa08072-c082-4628-8aaa-1dcee91b25b4@github.com>

> Backport of [JDK-8350498](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498) from 11 that removes two non root CA certificates no longer active.
> 
> The PR is on top of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u/pull/72 (for [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770)) to avoid conflicts, since CHECKSUM in VerifyCACerts.java is modified by both issues.
> 
> Not clean, as file locations have changed between 8 and 11.
> 
> Test VerifyCACerts.java passes (retested in jdk8u):
> 
> 
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
> 
> 
> Note: This PR was previously filed to 8u-dev ( https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/651 )  and was reviewed there. I've squashed the two commits there for an easier review here (and also rebased on #72 on top of 8u master).

Antonio Vieiro 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 three additional commits since the last revision:

 - Merge master
 - Backport 8894d6ad1b83553a5c60af51fd2de2319fd1d6ec
 - Backport c0e7aa6c122e88e0d749ac3e8edf2cda9c5f53da

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73/files/03be664d..98f8c146

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u&pr=73&range=02
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u&pr=73&range=01-02

  Stats: 0 lines in 0 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 0 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u.git pull/73/head:pull/73

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 11:05:53 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:05:53 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA certificates
 [v3]
In-Reply-To: <TwsTTbpwaXSdtTOqzUty7jvlHAHzlTW5X4t2TjsBNfo=.dfa08072-c082-4628-8aaa-1dcee91b25b4@github.com>
References: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>
 <TwsTTbpwaXSdtTOqzUty7jvlHAHzlTW5X4t2TjsBNfo=.dfa08072-c082-4628-8aaa-1dcee91b25b4@github.com>
Message-ID: <wwc3MimSsjBBsr7geU8Pi0ztt5IDv__2B2t2-2OcjC8=.3f4c5a24-d67e-415a-acdd-18404e2a072b@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 10:20:45 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Backport of [JDK-8350498](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498) from 11 that removes two non root CA certificates no longer active.
>> 
>> The PR is on top of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u/pull/72 (for [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770)) to avoid conflicts, since CHECKSUM in VerifyCACerts.java is modified by both issues.
>> 
>> Not clean, as file locations have changed between 8 and 11.
>> 
>> Test VerifyCACerts.java passes (retested in jdk8u):
>> 
>> 
>> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
>> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
>> 
>> 
>> Note: This PR was previously filed to 8u-dev ( https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/651 )  and was reviewed there. I've squashed the two commits there for an easier review here (and also rebased on #72 on top of 8u master).
>
> Antonio Vieiro 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 three additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Merge master
>  - Backport 8894d6ad1b83553a5c60af51fd2de2319fd1d6ec
>  - Backport c0e7aa6c122e88e0d749ac3e8edf2cda9c5f53da

The affected test  + VerifyCACerts.java` passes...


2025-06-03T10:30:44.5974732Z Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
2025-06-03T10:30:46.5110095Z Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
2025-06-03T10:30:47.0646283Z Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
2025-06-03T10:30:47.0829010Z Test results: passed: 46; failed: 7

... some other fail but are unrelated (seem to be wrong/outdated OCSP endpoints, have been failing for a while now).


2025-06-03T10:30:49.8943508Z Report written to /home/runner/work/jdk8u/jdk8u/test-results/testoutput/jdk_security_infra/JTreport/html/report.html
2025-06-03T10:30:49.8946273Z Results written to /home/runner/work/jdk8u/jdk8u/test-results/testoutput/jdk_security_infra/JTwork
2025-06-03T10:30:49.8948048Z Error: Some tests failed or other problems occurred.
2025-06-03T10:30:49.9493215Z Summary: jdk_security_infra
2025-06-03T10:30:49.9494014Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#globalsigneccrootcar4
2025-06-03T10:30:49.9494799Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#gtsrootcar1
2025-06-03T10:30:49.9495769Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#gtsrootcar2
2025-06-03T10:30:49.9496496Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#gtsrootecccar3
2025-06-03T10:30:49.9497212Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#gtsrootecccar4
2025-06-03T10:30:49.9497937Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#quovadisrootca1g3
2025-06-03T10:30:49.9498923Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#quovadisrootca2g3
2025-06-03T10:30:49.9499504Z TEST STATS: name=jdk_security_infra  run=53  pass=46  fail=7

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73#issuecomment-2934702111

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 13:35:09 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 13:35:09 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA certificates
 [v3]
In-Reply-To: <TwsTTbpwaXSdtTOqzUty7jvlHAHzlTW5X4t2TjsBNfo=.dfa08072-c082-4628-8aaa-1dcee91b25b4@github.com>
References: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>
 <TwsTTbpwaXSdtTOqzUty7jvlHAHzlTW5X4t2TjsBNfo=.dfa08072-c082-4628-8aaa-1dcee91b25b4@github.com>
Message-ID: <4qQIpVIXXw7TsZzkc8ph4--MqAsP9CCTwYM3i6kBBZs=.35c5072f-b921-47d3-ad62-e85f305d3b9f@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 10:20:45 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Backport of [JDK-8350498](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498) from 11 that removes two non root CA certificates no longer active.
>> 
>> The PR is on top of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u/pull/72 (for [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770)) to avoid conflicts, since CHECKSUM in VerifyCACerts.java is modified by both issues.
>> 
>> Not clean, as file locations have changed between 8 and 11.
>> 
>> Test VerifyCACerts.java passes (retested in jdk8u):
>> 
>> 
>> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
>> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
>> 
>> 
>> Note: This PR was previously filed to 8u-dev ( https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/651 )  and was reviewed there. I've squashed the two commits there for an easier review here (and also rebased on #72 on top of 8u master).
>
> Antonio Vieiro 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 three additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Merge master
>  - Backport 8894d6ad1b83553a5c60af51fd2de2319fd1d6ec
>  - Backport c0e7aa6c122e88e0d749ac3e8edf2cda9c5f53da

Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73#pullrequestreview-2892395480

From andrew at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 13:39:35 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 13:39:35 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8358328: Bump update version of OpenJDK: 8u472
Message-ID: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>

Rampdown for 8u462 [has begun](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2025-June/020118.html). 8u-dev needs to transition to 8u472.

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

Commit messages:
 - 8358328: Bump update version of OpenJDK: 8u472

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/658/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=658&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358328
  Stats: 2 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 2 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/658.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/658/head:pull/658

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/658

From andrew at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 14:15:00 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:15:00 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8358328: Bump update version of OpenJDK: 8u472
In-Reply-To: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
References: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
Message-ID: <_tCdXBnnbWHY4DeEBCXqwUdKlHnwodCBynUs6Kx_L0A=.37cba37e-b5d3-4fc4-9d2c-7a527623c356@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 13:34:54 GMT, Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Rampdown for 8u462 [has begun](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2025-June/020118.html). 8u-dev needs to transition to 8u472.

This one is also blocked on the openjdk8u472 version being added to the bug database. E-mail has been sent to ops.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/658#issuecomment-2935469752

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 14:16:54 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:16:54 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA certificates
 [v3]
In-Reply-To: <wwc3MimSsjBBsr7geU8Pi0ztt5IDv__2B2t2-2OcjC8=.3f4c5a24-d67e-415a-acdd-18404e2a072b@github.com>
References: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>
 <TwsTTbpwaXSdtTOqzUty7jvlHAHzlTW5X4t2TjsBNfo=.dfa08072-c082-4628-8aaa-1dcee91b25b4@github.com>
 <wwc3MimSsjBBsr7geU8Pi0ztt5IDv__2B2t2-2OcjC8=.3f4c5a24-d67e-415a-acdd-18404e2a072b@github.com>
Message-ID: <K5AKA7xoFGytEwdyNwzbAGz8W9DFsy2pH15MuhLisuI=.592cf71f-f221-41e2-8de4-dd6c16ee0eb0@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:03:06 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Antonio Vieiro 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 three additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - Merge master
>>  - Backport 8894d6ad1b83553a5c60af51fd2de2319fd1d6ec
>>  - Backport c0e7aa6c122e88e0d749ac3e8edf2cda9c5f53da
>
> The affected test  + VerifyCACerts.java` passes...
> 
> 
> 2025-06-03T10:30:44.5974732Z Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
> 2025-06-03T10:30:46.5110095Z Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> 2025-06-03T10:30:47.0646283Z Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
> 2025-06-03T10:30:47.0829010Z Test results: passed: 46; failed: 7
> 
> ... some other fail but are unrelated (seem to be wrong/outdated OCSP endpoints, have been failing for a while now).
> 
> 
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.8943508Z Report written to /home/runner/work/jdk8u/jdk8u/test-results/testoutput/jdk_security_infra/JTreport/html/report.html
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.8946273Z Results written to /home/runner/work/jdk8u/jdk8u/test-results/testoutput/jdk_security_infra/JTwork
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.8948048Z Error: Some tests failed or other problems occurred.
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.9493215Z Summary: jdk_security_infra
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.9494014Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#globalsigneccrootcar4
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.9494799Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#gtsrootcar1
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.9495769Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#gtsrootcar2
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.9496496Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#gtsrootecccar3
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.9497212Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#gtsrootecccar4
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.9497937Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#quovadisrootca1g3
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.9498923Z FAILED: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#quovadisrootca2g3
> 2025-06-03T10:30:49.9499504Z TEST STATS: name=jdk_security_infra  run=53  pass=46  fail=7

> @vieiro This pull request has not yet been marked as ready for integration.

Yep, I've seen that too late after reading the notification. That happens when you do things without reading...

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73#issuecomment-2935486811

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 14:25:05 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:25:05 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8358328: Bump update version of OpenJDK: 8u472
In-Reply-To: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
References: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
Message-ID: <p9rrnIb1k6zArAL6WHPCdcl7K_FPBoA59yz0pHnn3-Y=.88602340-22f8-4885-85ea-43b1ddb62021@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 13:34:54 GMT, Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Rampdown for 8u462 [has begun](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2025-June/020118.html). 8u-dev needs to transition to 8u472.

Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer).

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/658#pullrequestreview-2892667968

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 14:25:06 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:25:06 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8358328: Bump update version of OpenJDK: 8u472
In-Reply-To: <_tCdXBnnbWHY4DeEBCXqwUdKlHnwodCBynUs6Kx_L0A=.37cba37e-b5d3-4fc4-9d2c-7a527623c356@github.com>
References: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
 <_tCdXBnnbWHY4DeEBCXqwUdKlHnwodCBynUs6Kx_L0A=.37cba37e-b5d3-4fc4-9d2c-7a527623c356@github.com>
Message-ID: <Qa2trjnsgqtkHPnXti_f5tJgBfJaSYyC9ApwnHZt5-o=.222e5520-fbfa-453a-afe2-cfdc21f38eac@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:12:18 GMT, Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This one is also blocked on the openjdk8u472 version being added to the bug database. E-mail has been sent to ops.

According to my info it's there now.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/658#issuecomment-2935532419

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 14:43:58 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (duke)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:43:58 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA certificates
 [v3]
In-Reply-To: <TwsTTbpwaXSdtTOqzUty7jvlHAHzlTW5X4t2TjsBNfo=.dfa08072-c082-4628-8aaa-1dcee91b25b4@github.com>
References: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>
 <TwsTTbpwaXSdtTOqzUty7jvlHAHzlTW5X4t2TjsBNfo=.dfa08072-c082-4628-8aaa-1dcee91b25b4@github.com>
Message-ID: <q93CFrQNOE6__x-R64qCCliwkVNTaNPHcD2dTEVM8Q0=.907eea06-877f-4f51-a107-68a88dcb6070@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 10:20:45 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Backport of [JDK-8350498](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498) from 11 that removes two non root CA certificates no longer active.
>> 
>> The PR is on top of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u/pull/72 (for [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770)) to avoid conflicts, since CHECKSUM in VerifyCACerts.java is modified by both issues.
>> 
>> Not clean, as file locations have changed between 8 and 11.
>> 
>> Test VerifyCACerts.java passes (retested in jdk8u):
>> 
>> 
>> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
>> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
>> 
>> 
>> Note: This PR was previously filed to 8u-dev ( https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/651 )  and was reviewed there. I've squashed the two commits there for an easier review here (and also rebased on #72 on top of 8u master).
>
> Antonio Vieiro 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 three additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Merge master
>  - Backport 8894d6ad1b83553a5c60af51fd2de2319fd1d6ec
>  - Backport c0e7aa6c122e88e0d749ac3e8edf2cda9c5f53da

@vieiro 
Your change (at version 98f8c14634185e170a30926df8b61ed993042baf) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73#issuecomment-2935657643

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 15:32:08 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:32:08 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] Integrated: 8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA
 certificates
In-Reply-To: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>
References: <MxHG1CZSZ2uMlPG8i_wem5NL6gRh8Chg66wi8ubIXNc=.885fc137-eda9-4fed-a846-8a34d53f6e67@github.com>
Message-ID: <XhGLZTpPL0O1SpoZxABj7YSO5tFMi8XmOLmv5wo0nec=.b665af04-7b56-411e-9df7-5125a6a1f373@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 08:50:20 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Backport of [JDK-8350498](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350498) from 11 that removes two non root CA certificates no longer active.
> 
> The PR is on top of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u/pull/72 (for [JDK-8303770](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303770)) to avoid conflicts, since CHECKSUM in VerifyCACerts.java is modified by both issues.
> 
> Not clean, as file locations have changed between 8 and 11.
> 
> Test VerifyCACerts.java passes (retested in jdk8u):
> 
> 
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java
> 
> 
> Note: This PR was previously filed to 8u-dev ( https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/651 )  and was reviewed there. I've squashed the two commits there for an easier review here (and also rebased on #72 on top of 8u master).

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: c163b402
Author:    Antonio Vieiro <avieirov at redhat.com>
Committer: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/commit/c163b402d0620a42a1c8ebaa402124722dc0c8a2
Stats:     236 lines in 7 files changed: 2 ins; 212 del; 22 mod

8350498: Remove two Camerfirma root CA certificates

Reviewed-by: sgehwolf
Backport-of: 8894d6ad1b83553a5c60af51fd2de2319fd1d6ec

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/73

From evergizova at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 15:37:14 2025
From: evergizova at openjdk.org (Ekaterina Vergizova)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:37:14 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
Message-ID: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>

I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.

Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.

jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.

This PR was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/657

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

Commit messages:
 - Backport b8484be137a9d8bf6463188e1fc68b22db0b52c3

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u&pr=74&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8356096
  Stats: 11 lines in 4 files changed: 3 ins; 0 del; 8 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u.git pull/74/head:pull/74

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 15:54:00 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:54:00 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <NyhFAimdP9Kk142R-ks253Sax-xoOOo7j2lyEDTOdx8=.8be8b2b6-4f67-441d-bb45-442b00540d2a@github.com>
References: <NyhFAimdP9Kk142R-ks253Sax-xoOOo7j2lyEDTOdx8=.8be8b2b6-4f67-441d-bb45-442b00540d2a@github.com>
Message-ID: <7L9-QY7eej4QHMb-pXxGYCgmDYoRBhpSs7SxPkFLa4U=.d6a89ca1-c8fb-4d02-b946-984b19ffbe3e@github.com>

On Fri, 30 May 2025 18:12:47 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.
> 
> Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
> Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.
> 
> jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.

Please close this PR. Replaced by https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u/pull/74

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/657#issuecomment-2936066386

From evergizova at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 15:54:01 2025
From: evergizova at openjdk.org (Ekaterina Vergizova)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:54:01 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Withdrawn: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <NyhFAimdP9Kk142R-ks253Sax-xoOOo7j2lyEDTOdx8=.8be8b2b6-4f67-441d-bb45-442b00540d2a@github.com>
References: <NyhFAimdP9Kk142R-ks253Sax-xoOOo7j2lyEDTOdx8=.8be8b2b6-4f67-441d-bb45-442b00540d2a@github.com>
Message-ID: <c9EhyZT0GK5BzFGg8mnbC79zi8BoORsx39KzVVtttL8=.d12f0c4a-e7be-4a94-b6d0-2b085a730328@github.com>

On Fri, 30 May 2025 18:12:47 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.
> 
> Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
> Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.
> 
> jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.

This pull request has been closed without being integrated.

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/657

From phh at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 17:05:02 2025
From: phh at openjdk.org (Paul Hohensee)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 17:05:02 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
References: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
Message-ID: <41WDYeCyFP8k3pymP4OT_DpIPgs_JXz7iFAHHaWr2kc=.bcfb12ee-b971-46ad-accb-16c4a6863f6b@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:31:19 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.
> 
> Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
> Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.
> 
> jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.
> 
> This PR was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/657

This PR is against jdk8u rather than jdk8u-dev. Do you want this to be included in 8u462 as a critical fix?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74#issuecomment-2936336731

From evergizova at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 18:31:26 2025
From: evergizova at openjdk.org (Ekaterina Vergizova)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:31:26 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <41WDYeCyFP8k3pymP4OT_DpIPgs_JXz7iFAHHaWr2kc=.bcfb12ee-b971-46ad-accb-16c4a6863f6b@github.com>
References: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
 <41WDYeCyFP8k3pymP4OT_DpIPgs_JXz7iFAHHaWr2kc=.bcfb12ee-b971-46ad-accb-16c4a6863f6b@github.com>
Message-ID: <IJ2vv5lOs8Zijx_OfH1zJZm2ZJ7O9R0U1oULNDArXRE=.327c52b4-9f1b-4376-9a25-17163eee377f@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 17:02:34 GMT, Paul Hohensee <phh at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This PR is against jdk8u rather than jdk8u-dev. Do you want this to be included in 8u462 as a critical fix?

Yes, it is requested here: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/657#issuecomment-2931625905

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74#issuecomment-2936650583

From andrew at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 18:49:26 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:49:26 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8358328: Bump update version of OpenJDK: 8u472
In-Reply-To: <Qa2trjnsgqtkHPnXti_f5tJgBfJaSYyC9ApwnHZt5-o=.222e5520-fbfa-453a-afe2-cfdc21f38eac@github.com>
References: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
 <_tCdXBnnbWHY4DeEBCXqwUdKlHnwodCBynUs6Kx_L0A=.37cba37e-b5d3-4fc4-9d2c-7a527623c356@github.com>
 <Qa2trjnsgqtkHPnXti_f5tJgBfJaSYyC9ApwnHZt5-o=.222e5520-fbfa-453a-afe2-cfdc21f38eac@github.com>
Message-ID: <DMHgrcAwODHeLPez7i3xK2UhZ3ib7Srn2JOa0yKfh_g=.5c014fc5-e07e-468c-b2ab-12b61dce8836@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:22:02 GMT, Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at openjdk.org> wrote:

> > This one is also blocked on the openjdk8u472 version being added to the bug database. E-mail has been sent to ops.
> 
> According to my info it's there now.

Yes, confirmed by updating the Affected Version on the ticket. That wasn't possible when I added the comment :)

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/658#issuecomment-2936716440

From andrew at openjdk.org  Tue Jun  3 18:49:26 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:49:26 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8358328: Bump update version of OpenJDK: 8u472
In-Reply-To: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
References: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
Message-ID: <RZxZsbtm58fCGfEdfn4-eLYCcSu07xz6vFV8MtMJR8E=.c794f9a2-3448-4bbf-ad70-dc5e4c6027bb@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 13:34:54 GMT, Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Rampdown for 8u462 [has begun](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2025-June/020118.html). 8u-dev needs to transition to 8u472.

I think the WIndows build may be spinning because of this:

> The Windows Server 2019 runner image will be fully unsupported by June 30, 2025. To raise awareness of the upcoming removal, we will temporarily fail jobs using Windows Server 2019. Builds that are scheduled to run during the brownout periods will fail. The brownouts are scheduled for the following dates and times:
*June 3 13:00-21:00 UTC
*June 10 13:00-21:00 UTC
*June 17 13:00-21:00 UTC
*June 24 13:00-21:00 UTC

I'll look into fixing that after this PR if there is not already a fix pending.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/658#issuecomment-2936722061

From andrew at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 12:00:38 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:00:38 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Integrated: 8358328: Bump update version of OpenJDK: 8u472
In-Reply-To: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
References: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
Message-ID: <n31yW4CiHm_K492tW2oIyH-T7ZqBFO9hx64Tmb4oEgA=.bc69942f-bff6-4b05-b947-56e6f6c39c5c@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 13:34:54 GMT, Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Rampdown for 8u462 [has begun](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2025-June/020118.html). 8u-dev needs to transition to 8u472.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: bf175426
Author:    Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/commit/bf1754263cffbe07fc1e84d38b839177b173cc16
Stats:     2 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 2 mod

8358328: Bump update version of OpenJDK: 8u472

Reviewed-by: sgehwolf

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/658

From andrew at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 12:32:55 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:55 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8358328: Bump update version of OpenJDK: 8u472
In-Reply-To: <RZxZsbtm58fCGfEdfn4-eLYCcSu07xz6vFV8MtMJR8E=.c794f9a2-3448-4bbf-ad70-dc5e4c6027bb@github.com>
References: <yxzeeGZMvDAOEff9zyuQ2z02aOPbdECpuGSk6ptIyDM=.15a2ed19-4cd4-479b-8794-e73ac8d3fcc0@github.com>
 <RZxZsbtm58fCGfEdfn4-eLYCcSu07xz6vFV8MtMJR8E=.c794f9a2-3448-4bbf-ad70-dc5e4c6027bb@github.com>
Message-ID: <snaFZbvBSkrpAv6RR4HEKvbK_ne0HgKbVn-10pfAWI0=.81a71d7c-863e-43a3-a027-d64bcf8aca42@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:46:57 GMT, Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I think the WIndows build may be spinning because of this:
> 
> > The Windows Server 2019 runner image will be fully unsupported by June 30, 2025. To raise awareness of the upcoming removal, we will temporarily fail jobs using Windows Server 2019. Builds that are scheduled to run during the brownout periods will fail. The brownouts are scheduled for the following dates and times:
> > *June 3 13:00-21:00 UTC
> > *June 10 13:00-21:00 UTC
> > *June 17 13:00-21:00 UTC
> > *June 24 13:00-21:00 UTC
> 
> I'll look into fixing that after this PR if there is not already a fix pending.

It seems 2019 is still used even on trunk. Tracking [JDK-8358538](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8358538)

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/658#issuecomment-2939811247

From schernyshev at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 13:13:24 2025
From: schernyshev at openjdk.org (Sergey Chernyshev)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:13:24 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8224267: JOptionPane message string with 5000+
 newlines produces StackOverflowError
Message-ID: <NRSHhF-stTir-wz5dfsj-Fz8fw77xQn61bwpi2LlKQQ=.7347c4bf-e5d2-414f-9d95-89de45a7406d@github.com>

Hi all,

This is a parity backport with Oracle's 8u461, OpenJDK 8u462 is affected. Please see [JDK-8224267](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8224267). The commit [46251bc6](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/46251bc6e248a19e8d78173ff8d0502c68ee1acb) didn't apply cleanly as JDK-8049870 hasn't been backported to jdk8u-dev. The paths have been changed to the 8u path scheme. The test passes with the fix and fails otherwise.

Thanks!

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

Commit messages:
 - Backport 46251bc6e248a19e8d78173ff8d0502c68ee1acb

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/659/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=659&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8224267
  Stats: 68 lines in 2 files changed: 66 ins; 0 del; 2 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/659.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/659/head:pull/659

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/659

From andrew at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 14:45:01 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:45:01 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8296631: NSS tests failing on OL9 linux-aarch64
 hosts
In-Reply-To: <ZOhLVBYG4DvxnbukHOC3R0uqNFFaR14sXTlwzEa0k44=.05003c9d-0085-4389-956a-406b48db499b@github.com>
References: <vnuJbV-yoe8RjC3WLofW86xSGofuJwgOJUx8u5ucZgI=.fcfbfaef-767d-4483-8cea-418b83a3a9d3@github.com>
 <ZOhLVBYG4DvxnbukHOC3R0uqNFFaR14sXTlwzEa0k44=.05003c9d-0085-4389-956a-406b48db499b@github.com>
Message-ID: <idYIwzXQYMQfq_mEY5DoMVblnPclfGDWjWF63aMyfJU=.41796ed4-7bda-4da4-be7a-675af9320ebd@github.com>

On Thu, 29 May 2025 01:36:59 GMT, Taizo Kurashige <tkurashige at openjdk.org> wrote:

> @jerboaa @phohensee
> 
> This PR was integrated, but JBS issue for backport was not issued. So there is no line for openjdk8u at "Backports" part on [JDK-8296631](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296631) .
> 
> I don't remember doing anything different from the normal process. Do you know the cause?
> 
> Thanks.

I just spotted this as well, as it's still showing up in the "Approved without Push" filter. Looking into it.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/654#issuecomment-2940317702

From andrew at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 14:55:02 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:55:02 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8044051: Test
 jdk/lambda/vm/InterfaceAccessFlagsTest.java gets IOException during
 compilation [v2]
In-Reply-To: <HimZsvrReJj3Ry-BsnawAuSjGq7IShFrjVmUTSEEYBI=.4fe50fd4-6253-4c3e-8c0c-028e29c21e0c@github.com>
References: <3jvtyF2FUWX_OKA-exKt23Q2LBFqBrhYQcgwPiNgX_8=.ae1418fc-b8e8-4bd5-941e-97efe5d3a595@github.com>
 <_VD1A7at--g4DmcqkTd0Z6bFMfV6C1WfXQU53dY5hdA=.deb73fe1-73e1-4b58-a2e5-57f6e2fadbe8@github.com>
 <HimZsvrReJj3Ry-BsnawAuSjGq7IShFrjVmUTSEEYBI=.4fe50fd4-6253-4c3e-8c0c-028e29c21e0c@github.com>
Message-ID: <mI9wABw2dDDDZfd3sp6KQ3DVJWAnMcBxlpJ2TWDF3jQ=.017b7d5c-15c7-4fa7-b710-109894468d5f@github.com>

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:42:05 GMT, Zdenek Zambersky <zzambers at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This would be nice to fix. It is part of tier1 and is excluded in [aqa-tests](https://github.com/adoptium/aqa-tests/blob/50f5c7fa92fa9a5a6a0ba9bd870a586b6ad9db29/openjdk/excludes/ProblemList_openjdk8.txt#L398) because of this. Test passes on all platform in GHA.

I think it may be simplest to open a new PR for this, as this one looks abandoned.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/610#issuecomment-2940351649

From andrew at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 15:03:05 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:03:05 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8296631: NSS tests failing on OL9 linux-aarch64
 hosts
In-Reply-To: <hDdIlbWFQ0hp6w_dnHiYajaCMipazVK1xNbfFfoSHOU=.1545526d-7e1b-4afd-a051-908bc5d30ddc@github.com>
References: <vnuJbV-yoe8RjC3WLofW86xSGofuJwgOJUx8u5ucZgI=.fcfbfaef-767d-4483-8cea-418b83a3a9d3@github.com>
 <hDdIlbWFQ0hp6w_dnHiYajaCMipazVK1xNbfFfoSHOU=.1545526d-7e1b-4afd-a051-908bc5d30ddc@github.com>
Message-ID: <lWs2bTOl-xo1y69_SUaC9orPVR3IJKErkZVsq-t7HDQ=.4f0da389-c9d3-41fd-8abb-ced24fbd36ca@github.com>

On Thu, 29 May 2025 14:21:15 GMT, Paul Hohensee <phh at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hi,
>> 
>> This is a backport of JDK-8296631: NSS tests failing on OL9 linux-aarch64 hosts
>> 
>> Original patch does not apply cleanly for the following reasons:
>> 
>> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/PKCS11Test.java can not be applied because it is a fix to code that does not exist in jdk8.
>> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/Provider/MultipleLogin.sh can not be applied since test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/Provider/MultipleLogin.sh added in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240256  (jdk17).
>> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/tls/tls12 can not be applied since test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/tls/tls12 is an enhancement added in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8220753  (jdk13).
>> ?pkcs11/fips/ClientJSSEServerJSSE.java and pkcs11/fips/TrustManagerTest.java fail if I run the pkcs11 tests without the fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips/. This is because cert9.db, key4.db, and pkcs11.txt, which are required to run the tests using sqlite, do not exist in test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips. test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips was removed by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8217835  (jdk13), so the original patch does not fix test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips/. I added the database files to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips so that pkcs11/fips/ClientJSSEServerJSSE.java and pkcs11/fips/TrustManagerTest.java can run tests using sqlite and pass.
>> 
>> Testing: jdk/sun/security/pkcs11 tests on RHEL9, GHA testing
>> 
>> Thanks.
>
> I have no idea why. @jerboaa?

I've e-mailed ops and CCed you, @phohensee. I'm afraid I couldn't see an e-mail on your account, @kurashige23, to add you in as well but will let you know what happens.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/654#issuecomment-2940378137

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 16:31:01 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 16:31:01 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
References: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
Message-ID: <WZfcIB4DYGCyVH8ip1BurDvt2aMxJlqh8zF4NOG9dHQ=.798d14ac-da90-406f-8a66-3e02ae7531fe@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:31:19 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.
> 
> Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
> Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.
> 
> jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.
> 
> This PR was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/657

LGTM

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

Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74#pullrequestreview-2897391761

From andrew at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 16:51:02 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 16:51:02 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8296631: NSS tests failing on OL9 linux-aarch64
 hosts
In-Reply-To: <vnuJbV-yoe8RjC3WLofW86xSGofuJwgOJUx8u5ucZgI=.fcfbfaef-767d-4483-8cea-418b83a3a9d3@github.com>
References: <vnuJbV-yoe8RjC3WLofW86xSGofuJwgOJUx8u5ucZgI=.fcfbfaef-767d-4483-8cea-418b83a3a9d3@github.com>
Message-ID: <ocWXFVJAYHrsW27EE00M_rFqVRlrCG384QGYJVOnl3k=.f063d97d-f7fb-4a1a-a150-b8953994812f@github.com>

On Wed, 14 May 2025 08:42:55 GMT, Taizo Kurashige <tkurashige at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This is a backport of JDK-8296631: NSS tests failing on OL9 linux-aarch64 hosts
> 
> Original patch does not apply cleanly for the following reasons:
> 
> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/PKCS11Test.java can not be applied because it is a fix to code that does not exist in jdk8.
> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/Provider/MultipleLogin.sh can not be applied since test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/Provider/MultipleLogin.sh added in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240256  (jdk17).
> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/tls/tls12 can not be applied since test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/tls/tls12 is an enhancement added in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8220753  (jdk13).
> ?pkcs11/fips/ClientJSSEServerJSSE.java and pkcs11/fips/TrustManagerTest.java fail if I run the pkcs11 tests without the fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips/. This is because cert9.db, key4.db, and pkcs11.txt, which are required to run the tests using sqlite, do not exist in test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips. test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips was removed by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8217835  (jdk13), so the original patch does not fix test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips/. I added the database files to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips so that pkcs11/fips/ClientJSSEServerJSSE.java and pkcs11/fips/TrustManagerTest.java can run tests using sqlite and pass.
> 
> Testing: jdk/sun/security/pkcs11 tests on RHEL9, GHA testing
> 
> Thanks.

Fixed now. The ticket was there but not visible.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/654#issuecomment-2940729901

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 18:38:14 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:38:14 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 7102969: currency.properties supercede not working
 correctly
Message-ID: <cspRztHjuKY6OvkG3TdyJtshnIYucSJQ-2JedUQy_6o=.ec61e778-d892-47d5-9ecf-88b36b1dd01b@github.com>

This is a backport of JDK-7102969 and JDK-8157138 both of which were done as a single patch in JDK 9 (and also included JDK-8149452 which isn't part of this backport because it changes CLDR related things which I think are too risky to backport and only applying those hunks fails the newly added test for it). The reason why I propose to backport this is:

1. Oracle backported it to 8u461
2. It's a more thorough fix of [JDK-8353433](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8353433) which got added to avoid a test failure for an ISO 4217 Amendment 176 update. See [JDK-8353579](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8353579) and [this comment](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8353433?focusedId=14771442&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-14771442) for details.

I've mostly applied hunks manually and omitted the test for JDK-8149452 and the related `jdk/make/src/classes/build/tools/cldrconverter/CLDRConverter.java` changes.

Since this also fixes JDK-8353433, the change to the `CurrencyData.properties` has been revered (see separate commit). Backports of JDK-7102969 and JDK-8157138 fix the `java/util/Currency/ValidateISO4217.java` test as well.

Testing:
- [x] `jdk/test/java/util/Currency/` tests

Thoughts? Please review! Thanks in advance.

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

Commit messages:
 - 7102969: currency.properties supercede not working correctly
 - Revert "8353433: XCG currency code not recognized in JDK 8u"

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/660/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=660&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7102969
  Stats: 389 lines in 7 files changed: 289 ins; 42 del; 58 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/660.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/660/head:pull/660

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/660

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 18:38:14 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:38:14 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 7102969: currency.properties supercede not
 working correctly
In-Reply-To: <cspRztHjuKY6OvkG3TdyJtshnIYucSJQ-2JedUQy_6o=.ec61e778-d892-47d5-9ecf-88b36b1dd01b@github.com>
References: <cspRztHjuKY6OvkG3TdyJtshnIYucSJQ-2JedUQy_6o=.ec61e778-d892-47d5-9ecf-88b36b1dd01b@github.com>
Message-ID: <bJGKPNkyRt8cgB8VNH2qExWW9icaeFNPA-hf17cOzzM=.4f2fa536-7a35-4fe4-a9bf-034b30f7ff8f@github.com>

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:32:17 GMT, Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This is a backport of JDK-7102969 and JDK-8157138 both of which were done as a single patch in JDK 9 (and also included JDK-8149452 which isn't part of this backport because it changes CLDR related things which I think are too risky to backport and only applying those hunks fails the newly added test for it). The reason why I propose to backport this is:
> 
> 1. Oracle backported it to 8u461
> 2. It's a more thorough fix of [JDK-8353433](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8353433) which got added to avoid a test failure for an ISO 4217 Amendment 176 update. See [JDK-8353579](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8353579) and [this comment](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8353433?focusedId=14771442&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-14771442) for details.
> 
> I've mostly applied hunks manually and omitted the test for JDK-8149452 and the related `jdk/make/src/classes/build/tools/cldrconverter/CLDRConverter.java` changes.
> 
> Since this also fixes JDK-8353433, the change to the `CurrencyData.properties` has been revered (see separate commit). Backports of JDK-7102969 and JDK-8157138 fix the `java/util/Currency/ValidateISO4217.java` test as well.
> 
> Testing:
> - [x] `jdk/test/java/util/Currency/` tests
> 
> Thoughts? Please review! Thanks in advance.

Passed: java/util/Currency/Bug4512215.java
Passed: java/util/Currency/Bug6807534.java
Passed: java/util/Currency/CurrencyTest.java
Passed: java/util/Currency/PropertiesTest.sh
Passed: java/util/Currency/ValidateISO4217.java
Test results: passed: 5

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/660#issuecomment-2941014440

From phh at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 19:40:08 2025
From: phh at openjdk.org (Paul Hohensee)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:40:08 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <IJ2vv5lOs8Zijx_OfH1zJZm2ZJ7O9R0U1oULNDArXRE=.327c52b4-9f1b-4376-9a25-17163eee377f@github.com>
References: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
 <41WDYeCyFP8k3pymP4OT_DpIPgs_JXz7iFAHHaWr2kc=.bcfb12ee-b971-46ad-accb-16c4a6863f6b@github.com>
 <IJ2vv5lOs8Zijx_OfH1zJZm2ZJ7O9R0U1oULNDArXRE=.327c52b4-9f1b-4376-9a25-17163eee377f@github.com>
Message-ID: <Kg8EkvBXZV-5jpdba_i3HwQ9IiYN_MRxkd46igitTfc=.faee9541-4a05-4245-b5bc-2850e9e4cb31@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:28:59 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This PR is against jdk8u rather than jdk8u-dev. Do you want this to be included in 8u462 as a critical fix?
>
>> This PR is against jdk8u rather than jdk8u-dev. Do you want this to be included in 8u462 as a critical fix?
> 
> Yes, it is requested here: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/657#issuecomment-2931625905

@kvergizova, please enable GHA testing on your repo.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74#issuecomment-2941241194

From phh at openjdk.org  Wed Jun  4 19:40:11 2025
From: phh at openjdk.org (Paul Hohensee)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:40:11 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8296631: NSS tests failing on OL9 linux-aarch64
 hosts
In-Reply-To: <vnuJbV-yoe8RjC3WLofW86xSGofuJwgOJUx8u5ucZgI=.fcfbfaef-767d-4483-8cea-418b83a3a9d3@github.com>
References: <vnuJbV-yoe8RjC3WLofW86xSGofuJwgOJUx8u5ucZgI=.fcfbfaef-767d-4483-8cea-418b83a3a9d3@github.com>
Message-ID: <7-xB5dvvkHrXv6-jtRynSc_07uyqaBaF2V5q_wtIOpE=.8139ff59-e5dc-4171-981c-484dc9d25181@github.com>

On Wed, 14 May 2025 08:42:55 GMT, Taizo Kurashige <tkurashige at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This is a backport of JDK-8296631: NSS tests failing on OL9 linux-aarch64 hosts
> 
> Original patch does not apply cleanly for the following reasons:
> 
> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/PKCS11Test.java can not be applied because it is a fix to code that does not exist in jdk8.
> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/Provider/MultipleLogin.sh can not be applied since test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/Provider/MultipleLogin.sh added in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240256  (jdk17).
> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/tls/tls12 can not be applied since test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/tls/tls12 is an enhancement added in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8220753  (jdk13).
> ?pkcs11/fips/ClientJSSEServerJSSE.java and pkcs11/fips/TrustManagerTest.java fail if I run the pkcs11 tests without the fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips/. This is because cert9.db, key4.db, and pkcs11.txt, which are required to run the tests using sqlite, do not exist in test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips. test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips was removed by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8217835  (jdk13), so the original patch does not fix test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips/. I added the database files to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips so that pkcs11/fips/ClientJSSEServerJSSE.java and pkcs11/fips/TrustManagerTest.java can run tests using sqlite and pass.
> 
> Testing: jdk/sun/security/pkcs11 tests on RHEL9, GHA testing
> 
> Thanks.

Thank you, Andrew.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/654#issuecomment-2941239274

From tkurashige at openjdk.org  Thu Jun  5 01:37:00 2025
From: tkurashige at openjdk.org (Taizo Kurashige)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 01:37:00 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8296631: NSS tests failing on OL9 linux-aarch64
 hosts
In-Reply-To: <vnuJbV-yoe8RjC3WLofW86xSGofuJwgOJUx8u5ucZgI=.fcfbfaef-767d-4483-8cea-418b83a3a9d3@github.com>
References: <vnuJbV-yoe8RjC3WLofW86xSGofuJwgOJUx8u5ucZgI=.fcfbfaef-767d-4483-8cea-418b83a3a9d3@github.com>
Message-ID: <IH4qJ96i15b7xCdDwyNWXAEPwZm_LMtNnlRvk2tjSsY=.0df30fa4-77a8-403e-a6c0-8165d603355f@github.com>

On Wed, 14 May 2025 08:42:55 GMT, Taizo Kurashige <tkurashige at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This is a backport of JDK-8296631: NSS tests failing on OL9 linux-aarch64 hosts
> 
> Original patch does not apply cleanly for the following reasons:
> 
> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/PKCS11Test.java can not be applied because it is a fix to code that does not exist in jdk8.
> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/Provider/MultipleLogin.sh can not be applied since test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/Provider/MultipleLogin.sh added in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8240256  (jdk17).
> ?Fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/tls/tls12 can not be applied since test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/tls/tls12 is an enhancement added in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8220753  (jdk13).
> ?pkcs11/fips/ClientJSSEServerJSSE.java and pkcs11/fips/TrustManagerTest.java fail if I run the pkcs11 tests without the fix to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips/. This is because cert9.db, key4.db, and pkcs11.txt, which are required to run the tests using sqlite, do not exist in test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips. test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips was removed by https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8217835  (jdk13), so the original patch does not fix test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips/. I added the database files to test/jdk/sun/security/pkcs11/fips so that pkcs11/fips/ClientJSSEServerJSSE.java and pkcs11/fips/TrustManagerTest.java can run tests using sqlite and pass.
> 
> Testing: jdk/sun/security/pkcs11 tests on RHEL9, GHA testing
> 
> Thanks.

Thank you.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/654#issuecomment-2942412710

From syan at openjdk.org  Thu Jun  5 02:27:59 2025
From: syan at openjdk.org (SendaoYan)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 02:27:59 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8352302: Test
 sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TimestampCheck.java is failing
In-Reply-To: <dK0oLnuwpC6e7EI3CUUdbbAsZRZzeKp3SfL8b-nokF4=.089d0531-4f5a-45af-b337-5f4ee1fc8a30@github.com>
References: <fbBaLeplGauIYB5bEfN_iDYY0vBRrPUhxgYCXr4cvU8=.c26710a8-baa2-49b0-80f5-0a6014f40e6e@github.com>
 <dK0oLnuwpC6e7EI3CUUdbbAsZRZzeKp3SfL8b-nokF4=.089d0531-4f5a-45af-b337-5f4ee1fc8a30@github.com>
Message-ID: <CPg9s8q9pSrruUBJLY9Q4IWROv5gOQUBTukvPTKqz6w=.2f222574-e924-4277-8513-40c6d01c3fbc@github.com>

On Wed, 14 May 2025 19:26:28 GMT, Paul Hohensee <phh at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This pull request contains a clean backport of commit [577ede73](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/577ede73d8e916bac9050d3bee80d2f18cc833a7) from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>> 
>> The commit being backported was authored by Weijun Wang on 19 Mar 2025 and was reviewed by David Holmes.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>
> Marked as reviewed by phh (Reviewer).

Thanks for the approve @phohensee

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/642#issuecomment-2942543344

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Thu Jun  5 12:38:51 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 12:38:51 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
References: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
Message-ID: <5_hI0oyZ70Cb1j5buNc004RqQx9SaRTlGhclIs6FpR8=.ad89053a-c5b6-4bd1-985d-5a08077be7a0@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:31:19 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.
> 
> Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
> Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.
> 
> jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.
> 
> This PR was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/657

Please trigger a GHA test run. Thanks!

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74#issuecomment-2944082223

From evergizova at openjdk.org  Thu Jun  5 14:27:00 2025
From: evergizova at openjdk.org (Ekaterina Vergizova)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 14:27:00 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <5_hI0oyZ70Cb1j5buNc004RqQx9SaRTlGhclIs6FpR8=.ad89053a-c5b6-4bd1-985d-5a08077be7a0@github.com>
References: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
 <5_hI0oyZ70Cb1j5buNc004RqQx9SaRTlGhclIs6FpR8=.ad89053a-c5b6-4bd1-985d-5a08077be7a0@github.com>
Message-ID: <ZfTuacpdzXdWcYT6kh2LYvFBHQGnvz7o5FGvrOH3Y5w=.4bd28f66-5054-4132-a180-82d1ff4ebf37@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 12:36:46 GMT, Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please trigger a GHA test run. Thanks!

Done.
Tests failures are not related to the fix:
- security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java
- gc/concurrentMarkSweep/CheckAllocateAndSystemGC.java

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74#issuecomment-2944709553

From duke at openjdk.org  Thu Jun  5 15:09:12 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Thomas Fitzsimmons)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 15:09:12 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8339414: Fix JDK-8202369 incorrect backport for 8u
Message-ID: <3ZHDRC4zQDNwDBQH8Q4ldgqc7TAqvMHbMyrl0jzy_eU=.296dc850-ead7-4b8e-8e1a-bb8d86200418@github.com>

There is a large `#ifdef` in JDK 8's `Inet4AddressImpl.c`:


#if defined(__GLIBC__) || (defined(__FreeBSD__) && (__FreeBSD_version >= 601104))
#define HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R   1
#endif

#if defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)
[... 261 lines ...]
#else /* defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R) */
[... ~ 244 similar lines ...]
#endif /* _ALLBSD_SOURCE */


When the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8201369 was backported to `8`, the second branch of the large `#ifdef` in `Inet4AddressImpl.c` was not changed at the same time, which is incorrect, since reverse lookup should only ever happen on `Solaris`, according to the description of `JDK-8201369`.

I used the `JDK 11` `unix/native/libnet/Inet4AddressImpl.c` implementation; after this change, the only difference between `11`'s `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` and the `defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` one will be the use of `JVM_GetHostName` in `8` versus `gethostname` in `11`.

I decided to update the `hostlen` argument to `getnameinfo` from `NI_MAXHOST` to `sizeof(hostname)` to fix https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8202181 for this function.  I do not have a `Solaris` machine to test on, but this matches `11`'s `getnameinfo` calls, and is correct given `hostname[NI_MAXHOST] = '\0'`.

The resulting behaviour should be the same, other than the reverse lookup only being performed on `Solaris`.

The implementations of `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` in each of the `#ifdef` branches diverge already because the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7112670 (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/commit/a62dd6282b7a0f1f3c75dad90385783b93d30e61) was only applied to the second branch.

Probably the upper `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` implementation could be made identical to the lower, but I do not want to do that, just in case `NI_MAXHOST` is preferred to `sizeof(hostname)` on `!defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` operating systems.

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

Commit messages:
 - 8339414: Fix JDK-8202369 incorrect backport

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=661&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8339414
  Stats: 26 lines in 1 file changed: 9 ins; 13 del; 4 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/661/head:pull/661

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661

From andrew at openjdk.org  Thu Jun  5 20:51:57 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 20:51:57 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8339414: Fix JDK-8202369 incorrect backport for
 8u
In-Reply-To: <3ZHDRC4zQDNwDBQH8Q4ldgqc7TAqvMHbMyrl0jzy_eU=.296dc850-ead7-4b8e-8e1a-bb8d86200418@github.com>
References: <3ZHDRC4zQDNwDBQH8Q4ldgqc7TAqvMHbMyrl0jzy_eU=.296dc850-ead7-4b8e-8e1a-bb8d86200418@github.com>
Message-ID: <_xAAQSL7CIE4JhMVzswRPGAX3-EyhL_KU3WyrQEYXos=.8868ac6b-ebed-40e6-8359-c7a33c8d5c7c@github.com>

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 20:44:19 GMT, Thomas Fitzsimmons <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> There is a large `#ifdef` in JDK 8's `Inet4AddressImpl.c`:
> 
> 
> #if defined(__GLIBC__) || (defined(__FreeBSD__) && (__FreeBSD_version >= 601104))
> #define HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R   1
> #endif
> 
> #if defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)
> [... 261 lines ...]
> #else /* defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R) */
> [... ~ 244 similar lines ...]
> #endif /* _ALLBSD_SOURCE */
> 
> 
> When the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8201369 was backported to `8`, the second branch of the large `#ifdef` in `Inet4AddressImpl.c` was not changed at the same time, which is incorrect, since reverse lookup should only ever happen on `Solaris`, according to the description of `JDK-8201369`.
> 
> I used the `JDK 11` `unix/native/libnet/Inet4AddressImpl.c` implementation; after this change, the only difference between `11`'s `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` and the `defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` one will be the use of `JVM_GetHostName` in `8` versus `gethostname` in `11`.
> 
> I decided to update the `hostlen` argument to `getnameinfo` from `NI_MAXHOST` to `sizeof(hostname)` to fix https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8202181 for this function.  I do not have a `Solaris` machine to test on, but this matches `11`'s `getnameinfo` calls, and is correct given `hostname[NI_MAXHOST] = '\0'`.
> 
> The resulting behaviour should be the same, other than the reverse lookup only being performed on `Solaris`.
> 
> The implementations of `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` in each of the `#ifdef` branches diverge already because the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7112670 (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/commit/a62dd6282b7a0f1f3c75dad90385783b93d30e61) was only applied to the second branch.
> 
> Probably the upper `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` implementation could be made identical to the lower, but I do not want to do that, just in case `NI_MAXHOST` is preferred to `sizeof(hostname)` on `!defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` operating systems.

Yes, this seems like a clear case of the duplication of `getLocalHostName(JNIEnv *env, jobject this)` being missed in backporting from 11u (which has a much simpler addition of the `#ifdef` and the `#else`case). There's a lot of noise in removing the stored `error` value both in the original 8u backport and this change, but the overall change amounts to the same as 11u.

To that end, I don't think a partial backport of [JDK-8202181](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8202181) belongs here. Even if we agree not to alter the branch without `HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R` (which I think has merit as we don't define `NI_MAXHOST` ourselves there), we should fix `getHostByAddr` and the IPv6 implementation. So I'd rather see that handled in full as a separate PR, rather than deviating from the 8202369 backport here.

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

Changes requested by andrew (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661#pullrequestreview-2902286336

From duke at openjdk.org  Thu Jun  5 23:27:41 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Thomas Fitzsimmons)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:27:41 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8339414: Fix JDK-8202369 incorrect backport for
 8u [v2]
In-Reply-To: <3ZHDRC4zQDNwDBQH8Q4ldgqc7TAqvMHbMyrl0jzy_eU=.296dc850-ead7-4b8e-8e1a-bb8d86200418@github.com>
References: <3ZHDRC4zQDNwDBQH8Q4ldgqc7TAqvMHbMyrl0jzy_eU=.296dc850-ead7-4b8e-8e1a-bb8d86200418@github.com>
Message-ID: <pbIjIXC-SSOgZMjx96sYtEoH35wsqNgxOTl1BavLqHY=.d28c0b7d-d5a2-4f89-91cd-582b57b4cf9e@github.com>

> There is a large `#ifdef` in JDK 8's `Inet4AddressImpl.c`:
> 
> 
> #if defined(__GLIBC__) || (defined(__FreeBSD__) && (__FreeBSD_version >= 601104))
> #define HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R   1
> #endif
> 
> #if defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)
> [... 261 lines ...]
> #else /* defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R) */
> [... ~ 244 similar lines ...]
> #endif /* _ALLBSD_SOURCE */
> 
> 
> When the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8201369 was backported to `8`, the second branch of the large `#ifdef` in `Inet4AddressImpl.c` was not changed at the same time, which is incorrect, since reverse lookup should only ever happen on `Solaris`, according to the description of `JDK-8201369`.
> 
> I used the `JDK 11` `unix/native/libnet/Inet4AddressImpl.c` implementation; after this change, the only difference between `11`'s `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` and the `defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` one will be the use of `JVM_GetHostName` in `8` versus `gethostname` in `11`.
> 
> I decided to update the `hostlen` argument to `getnameinfo` from `NI_MAXHOST` to `sizeof(hostname)` to fix https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8202181 for this function.  I do not have a `Solaris` machine to test on, but this matches `11`'s `getnameinfo` calls, and is correct given `hostname[NI_MAXHOST] = '\0'`.
> 
> The resulting behaviour should be the same, other than the reverse lookup only being performed on `Solaris`.
> 
> The implementations of `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` in each of the `#ifdef` branches diverge already because the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7112670 (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/commit/a62dd6282b7a0f1f3c75dad90385783b93d30e61) was only applied to the second branch.
> 
> Probably the upper `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` implementation could be made identical to the lower, but I do not want to do that, just in case `NI_MAXHOST` is preferred to `sizeof(hostname)` on `!defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` operating systems.

Thomas Fitzsimmons has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:

  Revert partial backport of JDK-8202181

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661/files/8d8bef80..0857914d

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=661&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=661&range=00-01

  Stats: 1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/661/head:pull/661

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661

From ktakakuri at openjdk.org  Fri Jun  6 07:00:41 2025
From: ktakakuri at openjdk.org (Kazuhisa Takakuri)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:00:41 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8154043: Fields not reachable anymore by tab-key, 
 because of new tabbing behaviour of radio button groups. [v4]
In-Reply-To: <uS3pR-oynm7HF88V25wPugtA6mhPhDMLeLaQ-V2aWVA=.5a3ec1fe-7f63-4ce2-80c9-cd145022d928@github.com>
References: <uS3pR-oynm7HF88V25wPugtA6mhPhDMLeLaQ-V2aWVA=.5a3ec1fe-7f63-4ce2-80c9-cd145022d928@github.com>
Message-ID: <xQM3sWzNMJkCk2iXLQ2EYVkueJktI_lgyW1htoPkxRA=.32067e9c-9057-4336-90b4-5144ec5de126@github.com>

> This is a backport of JDK-8154043: Fields not reachable anymore by tab-key, because of new tabbing behaviour of radio button groups.
> 
> Applying the JDK-8154043 fix as is will result in a regression of JDK-8182577.
> The fix of JDK-8182577 adds an interface for JDK10, therefore this fix cannot be backported simply for JDK8u.
> So, I propose to judge the buttonModel is an instance of DefaultButtonModel.
> 
> Testing:
> java/awt
> javax/swing
> ButtonGroupLayoutTraversalTest.java
> bug8033699.java
> DefaultButtonModelCrashTest.java
> on Windows x86_64

Kazuhisa Takakuri has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:

  Backport 8d81ec63b2bafc431cbb8572a3e45e76580ab46f

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/285/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/285/files/a1eac9d6..7bee28de

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=285&range=03
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=285&range=02-03

  Stats: 2 lines in 2 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 2 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/285.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/285/head:pull/285

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/285

From ktakakuri at openjdk.org  Fri Jun  6 07:05:05 2025
From: ktakakuri at openjdk.org (Kazuhisa Takakuri)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 07:05:05 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8154043: Fields not reachable anymore by tab-key, 
 because of new tabbing behaviour of radio button groups. [v3]
In-Reply-To: <ZJqtzT4OQ2y_lWuLepNsjRxWbxz9PtSb9mEJWWsa4Is=.48147cf3-e240-4416-baf9-480b8627ef7f@github.com>
References: <uS3pR-oynm7HF88V25wPugtA6mhPhDMLeLaQ-V2aWVA=.5a3ec1fe-7f63-4ce2-80c9-cd145022d928@github.com>
 <VgtgJOE9vekLz5_K4-3Q5UOjr58GNR8NPjdmwsbKUCk=.8644d611-52d9-4662-94ca-1b13330e3908@github.com>
 <ZJqtzT4OQ2y_lWuLepNsjRxWbxz9PtSb9mEJWWsa4Is=.48147cf3-e240-4416-baf9-480b8627ef7f@github.com>
Message-ID: <1zEG61X9kwvXkm75J_ZTz-aOSRdrE9FwEhSDacyiICE=.0d97fea5-08f3-4572-9c96-7f33a7e07997@github.com>

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:12:54 GMT, Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Kazuhisa Takakuri has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   Fix the copyright years
>
> The associated CSR [JDK-8182695](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8182695) is for adding the `getModel()` method in [JDK-8182577](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8182577) but this patch does not add that method (and should not). It is just bringing over the test case and some minor code fixes.

@gnu-andrew
Sorry for the delayed response.

> What piqued your interest in this bug? Are you or others hitting it in real use? Or was it just a case of Oracle fixed it, so we should?

Yes. When migrate to OpenJDK 8, I found that the bug reported in JDK-8154043 is reproduced on openjdk8. I think this bug should be fixed because it is consistently reproducible and there is no workaround.

> we should also include the correction to the indentation of group.getElements() and presumably the instanceof test?

Thanks for pointing that out. I've corrected the indentations.
What does "the instanceof test" mean?
ButtonGroupLayoutTraversalTest verifies the behavior of JToggleButton that DefaultButtonModel is implicitly set. Are you saying we should confirm that the issue is not fixed with a custom ButtonModel that doesn't inherit from DefaultButtonModel, or that we should confirm it is fixed even with a ButtonModel that does inherit from DefaultButtonModel?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/285#issuecomment-2948298628

From andrew at openjdk.org  Fri Jun  6 16:50:01 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 16:50:01 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8339414: Fix JDK-8202369 incorrect backport for
 8u [v2]
In-Reply-To: <pbIjIXC-SSOgZMjx96sYtEoH35wsqNgxOTl1BavLqHY=.d28c0b7d-d5a2-4f89-91cd-582b57b4cf9e@github.com>
References: <3ZHDRC4zQDNwDBQH8Q4ldgqc7TAqvMHbMyrl0jzy_eU=.296dc850-ead7-4b8e-8e1a-bb8d86200418@github.com>
 <pbIjIXC-SSOgZMjx96sYtEoH35wsqNgxOTl1BavLqHY=.d28c0b7d-d5a2-4f89-91cd-582b57b4cf9e@github.com>
Message-ID: <AyZgIIxzEEd-gqLgBEfqNGOGE9MjoKxnGFP1nD0pgz0=.c49730c9-c805-4012-9ae4-b46fed2557c7@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:27:41 GMT, Thomas Fitzsimmons <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> There is a large `#ifdef` in JDK 8's `Inet4AddressImpl.c`:
>> 
>> 
>> #if defined(__GLIBC__) || (defined(__FreeBSD__) && (__FreeBSD_version >= 601104))
>> #define HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R   1
>> #endif
>> 
>> #if defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)
>> [... 261 lines ...]
>> #else /* defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R) */
>> [... ~ 244 similar lines ...]
>> #endif /* _ALLBSD_SOURCE */
>> 
>> 
>> When the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8201369 was backported to `8`, the second branch of the large `#ifdef` in `Inet4AddressImpl.c` was not changed at the same time, which is incorrect, since reverse lookup should only ever happen on `Solaris`, according to the description of `JDK-8201369`.
>> 
>> I used the `JDK 11` `unix/native/libnet/Inet4AddressImpl.c` implementation; after this change, the only difference between `11`'s `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` and the `defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` one will be the use of `JVM_GetHostName` in `8` versus `gethostname` in `11`.
>> 
>> I decided to update the `hostlen` argument to `getnameinfo` from `NI_MAXHOST` to `sizeof(hostname)` to fix https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8202181 for this function.  I do not have a `Solaris` machine to test on, but this matches `11`'s `getnameinfo` calls, and is correct given `hostname[NI_MAXHOST] = '\0'`.
>> 
>> The resulting behaviour should be the same, other than the reverse lookup only being performed on `Solaris`.
>> 
>> The implementations of `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` in each of the `#ifdef` branches diverge already because the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7112670 (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/commit/a62dd6282b7a0f1f3c75dad90385783b93d30e61) was only applied to the second branch.
>> 
>> Probably the upper `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` implementation could be made identical to the lower, but I do not want to do that, just in case `NI_MAXHOST` is preferred to `sizeof(hostname)` on `!defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` operating systems.
>
> Thomas Fitzsimmons has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Revert partial backport of JDK-8202181

Thanks. Happy for this to go in now it's just the backport.

Please [apply for approval](https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/SKARA/Pull+Request+Commands#PullRequestCommands-/approval)

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

Marked as reviewed by andrew (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661#pullrequestreview-2905479803

From andrew at openjdk.org  Fri Jun  6 17:15:55 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 17:15:55 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
References: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
Message-ID: <Xb4wjJ9YnQn1NcedJRN4C2-20DnQpMSQIVuqv0xHIWA=.e9c7b95f-9840-45f3-a619-bd2e8a63e0e2@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:31:19 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.
> 
> Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
> Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.
> 
> jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.
> 
> This PR was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/657

The difference in `ISO4217-list-one.txt` seems to be due to an incomplete update in the backport of [JDK-8334653](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334653) to 8u:

11u version:
~~~
 #
 #
-# Amendments up until ISO 4217 AMENDMENT NUMBER 176
-#   (As of 06 December 2023)
+# Amendments up until ISO 4217 AMENDMENT NUMBER 177
+#   (As of 20 June 2024)
 #
~~~

8u version:
~~~
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 #
 #
 # Amendments up until ISO 4217 AMENDMENT NUMBER 176
-#   (As of 06 December 2023)
+#   (As of 20 June 2024)
 #
~~~

This change implicitly fixes that by doing the full update to 179. The other difference is down to formatting differences in the test and looks fine.

I think this is good to go.

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

Marked as reviewed by andrew (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74#pullrequestreview-2905551563

From andrew at openjdk.org  Fri Jun  6 17:18:55 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 17:18:55 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
References: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
Message-ID: <WjBMqAG_BwnaTPlGbQMsBbjKOkt5_OmZVJiEE13QD3Q=.86787f6c-6d19-4204-b514-8d2ad054338f@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:31:19 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.
> 
> Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
> Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.
> 
> jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.
> 
> This PR was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/657

For submitting a critical approval request like this one, I would expect the approval request to explain why it can not wait until the next update (i.e. be handled in 8u-dev). In this case, I see that the currency update being made is already live (effective 2025-05-12), so I agree it fits the timeliness criteria for critical inclusion in the 2025-07 update. But please bear this in mind for future critical approvals.  Thanks.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74#issuecomment-2949922736

From duke at openjdk.org  Fri Jun  6 21:00:01 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (duke)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 21:00:01 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
References: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
Message-ID: <fFIwHbr8tlzlSg_OYPOcbabw0j9EUa7XgYKWKvWa3Ws=.9b0b7c4c-765b-442e-96c9-84aad703685b@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:31:19 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.
> 
> Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
> Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.
> 
> jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.
> 
> This PR was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/657

@kvergizova 
Your change (at version 231119b2bebb5edafb93108bfd235063c18deb7c) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74#issuecomment-2950778358

From tkurashige at openjdk.org  Sun Jun  8 23:21:56 2025
From: tkurashige at openjdk.org (Taizo Kurashige)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 23:21:56 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8351624: [8u] Xerces-J version wrong in
 THIRD_PARTY_README after JDK-7150324
In-Reply-To: <wmsPcnWLy34WIudvBXy5G6pGhhoaPGHGZZfDsvgIGNo=.20f34a4b-b8ff-48cf-8bfa-21eda4bf7e6e@github.com>
References: <wmsPcnWLy34WIudvBXy5G6pGhhoaPGHGZZfDsvgIGNo=.20f34a4b-b8ff-48cf-8bfa-21eda4bf7e6e@github.com>
Message-ID: <q5WwNbwOkT0747MNQ8pGWMFtr_7g-pNdtXHYhUVqksE=.e0de99f2-9035-4a41-9cd6-b88bf61bd3c9@github.com>

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:12:22 GMT, Taizo Kurashige <tkurashige at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This PR fixes the wrong version of Xerces-J.
> The version of Xerces-J became 2.7.1 in JDK-7150324, but it is 2.10.0 in THIRD_PARTY_README.
> Just fix THIRD_PARTY_README, no risk.
> 
> Thanks

@jerboaa 

I'm sorry to bother you suddenly, but could you please review this PR?
Or could you assign a reviewer?
I'm having trouble because I haven't had any reviewers for a while.

Thanks.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/636#issuecomment-2954325104

From schernyshev at openjdk.org  Mon Jun  9 06:39:02 2025
From: schernyshev at openjdk.org (Sergey Chernyshev)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 06:39:02 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8224267: JOptionPane message string with 5000+
 newlines produces StackOverflowError [v2]
In-Reply-To: <NRSHhF-stTir-wz5dfsj-Fz8fw77xQn61bwpi2LlKQQ=.7347c4bf-e5d2-414f-9d95-89de45a7406d@github.com>
References: <NRSHhF-stTir-wz5dfsj-Fz8fw77xQn61bwpi2LlKQQ=.7347c4bf-e5d2-414f-9d95-89de45a7406d@github.com>
Message-ID: <AsoMToP-Xnz-jxSLKk56BC_jOB12YwUThNsTwTp18yw=.2ecb8769-62dd-447d-aede-dee479b855c8@github.com>

> Hi all,
> 
> This is a parity backport with Oracle's 8u461, OpenJDK 8u462 is affected. Please see [JDK-8224267](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8224267). The commit [46251bc6](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/46251bc6e248a19e8d78173ff8d0502c68ee1acb) didn't apply cleanly as JDK-8049870 hasn't been backported to jdk8u-dev. The paths have been changed to the 8u path scheme. The test passes with the fix and fails otherwise.
> 
> Thanks!

Sergey Chernyshev has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional commits since the last revision:

 - Backport 91072ee3934616ab2edc4850a59c0a25fd0de3b4
 - Backport 6e18883d8ffd9a7b7d495da05e9859dc1d1a2677

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

Changes:
  - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/659/files
  - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/659/files/cc696566..4b63d539

Webrevs:
 - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=659&range=01
 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=659&range=00-01

  Stats: 179 lines in 3 files changed: 142 ins; 22 del; 15 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/659.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/659/head:pull/659

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/659

From aoqi at openjdk.org  Mon Jun  9 07:30:44 2025
From: aoqi at openjdk.org (Ao Qi)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 07:30:44 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8044051: Test
 jdk/lambda/vm/InterfaceAccessFlagsTest.java gets IOException during
 compilation
Message-ID: <s8SRi92ONOGiRTuvrM7c4R6MOFUjrMijFluqvrcriDI=.2769e91f-802d-4307-8748-f89cd45d430a@github.com>

This backport was previously submitted in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/610 and was [approved](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8044051) at the time. Since the original patch has been abandoned and the original author @yaqsun  is currently on vacation, I would like to open a new PR to move this backport forward.

As described in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/610, the patch applies cleanly. It only affects test cases. Low risk. Related tests `jdk/lambda` have passed.

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

Commit messages:
 - Backport 9b8b6695108762063f96a275d9567bed72b88126

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/662/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u-dev&pr=662&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8044051
  Stats: 3 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 3 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/662.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/662/head:pull/662

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/662

From aoqi at openjdk.org  Mon Jun  9 08:45:55 2025
From: aoqi at openjdk.org (Ao Qi)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 08:45:55 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8044051: Test
 jdk/lambda/vm/InterfaceAccessFlagsTest.java gets IOException during
 compilation
In-Reply-To: <s8SRi92ONOGiRTuvrM7c4R6MOFUjrMijFluqvrcriDI=.2769e91f-802d-4307-8748-f89cd45d430a@github.com>
References: <s8SRi92ONOGiRTuvrM7c4R6MOFUjrMijFluqvrcriDI=.2769e91f-802d-4307-8748-f89cd45d430a@github.com>
Message-ID: <x16-piJnX8poFZGwqbruLbTOUPxSZB7_r79agg26lcM=.36cd34a3-5baa-42dc-b3b6-cd5d09aa39c5@github.com>

On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 07:16:13 GMT, Ao Qi <aoqi at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This backport was previously submitted in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/610 and was [approved](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8044051) at the time. Since the original patch has been abandoned and the original author @yaqsun  is currently on vacation, I would like to open a new PR to move this backport forward. This is a parity backport with Oracle's 8u411.
> 
> As described in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/610, the patch applies cleanly. It only affects test cases. Low risk. Related tests `jdk/lambda` have passed.

I think the GHA error is not related to this PR.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/662#issuecomment-2955097475

From evergizova at openjdk.org  Mon Jun  9 15:53:07 2025
From: evergizova at openjdk.org (Ekaterina Vergizova)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 15:53:07 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] Integrated: 8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update
In-Reply-To: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
References: <Xi5Jk8_w0WPjA7tlymsLW4OtriujUdN9o8JhCxfdahA=.bc437c9f-b421-4316-9cf5-5a045fb810fc@github.com>
Message-ID: <jBXgqQHh5tJlM0mjpX6pGSVh06pYCuuViWVGASkGAJk=.e9ecc326-f62b-4080-8421-c42a66bb20da@github.com>

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 15:31:19 GMT, Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I'd like to backport JDK-8356096 for parity with Oracle 8u461.
> 
> Backport is not clean due to minor context differences in the test ValidateISO4217.java and in ISO4217-list-one.txt, changes were applied manually.
> Changes in CurrencyData.properties and CurrencyNames.properties applied cleanly after paths reshuffling.
> 
> jdk/test/java/util/Currency tests passed.
> 
> This PR was previously reviewed in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/657

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: 711caa3c
Author:    Ekaterina Vergizova <evergizova at openjdk.org>
Committer: Paul Hohensee <phh at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/commit/711caa3ce056659a8f54c58b6cbbd3aaa221eaf4
Stats:     11 lines in 4 files changed: 3 ins; 0 del; 8 mod

8356096: ISO 4217 Amendment 179 Update

Reviewed-by: sgehwolf, andrew
Backport-of: b8484be137a9d8bf6463188e1fc68b22db0b52c3

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/74

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Tue Jun 10 09:46:46 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 09:46:46 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8185500: [TESTBUG] Add keywords headful/printer
 in java/awt and javax tests. [v4]
In-Reply-To: <7oyhKbyejE1hFmTXAkP6QKbrjGU_QYbG11pxv8kG1AI=.1310157e-f60a-4491-afa6-283704458546@github.com>
References: <OzzKaKHgfVsLTTs8LTkigNgghch7rQtSPOcVdh26oq8=.0762214c-2240-464a-9bc1-c077836f7458@github.com>
 <egsILCEeynTjLwKBZBfLg_4BTLEo9cFvFx4smKNSbGs=.1fa5e246-846e-450d-a2bf-541ec9d93bf0@github.com>
 <7oyhKbyejE1hFmTXAkP6QKbrjGU_QYbG11pxv8kG1AI=.1310157e-f60a-4491-afa6-283704458546@github.com>
Message-ID: <ujxlntrPB3j5jFh1ujVe1IeabXuM6T4DurJhoECNYlw=.a6e3b613-e06f-432a-a2ad-4a6ff9b86e67@github.com>

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 02:40:51 GMT, yaqsun <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> yaqsun has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
>> 
>>  - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into backport-8185500
>>  - Backport 34afeced211cd7115e2529b043c1e57dfa1291fe
>>  - Backport 34afeced211cd7115e2529b043c1e57dfa1291fe
>>  - Backport 34afeced211cd7115e2529b043c1e57dfa1291fe
>>  - Backport 34afeced211cd7115e2529b043c1e57dfa1291fe
>>  - Backport 34afeced211cd7115e2529b043c1e57dfa1291fe
>>  - Backport 34afeced211cd7115e2529b043c1e57dfa1291fe
>>  - Backport 34afeced211cd7115e2529b043c1e57dfa1291fe
>
> security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#certignarootca always fail in test results.

This is pending integration by @yaqsun.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/464#issuecomment-2958414411

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Tue Jun 10 09:48:38 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 09:48:38 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 7102969: currency.properties supercede not
 working correctly
In-Reply-To: <cspRztHjuKY6OvkG3TdyJtshnIYucSJQ-2JedUQy_6o=.ec61e778-d892-47d5-9ecf-88b36b1dd01b@github.com>
References: <cspRztHjuKY6OvkG3TdyJtshnIYucSJQ-2JedUQy_6o=.ec61e778-d892-47d5-9ecf-88b36b1dd01b@github.com>
Message-ID: <Wugx85eWuR8VAXhopWGtY6_-mIqjTRs8U06baqoRHMQ=.e64847ee-be84-4df8-9f46-db4c31cb23c1@github.com>

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:32:17 GMT, Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This is a backport of JDK-7102969 and JDK-8157138 both of which were done as a single patch in JDK 9 (and also included JDK-8149452 which isn't part of this backport because it changes CLDR related things which I think are too risky to backport and only applying those hunks fails the newly added test for it). The reason why I propose to backport this is:
> 
> 1. Oracle backported it to 8u461
> 2. It's a more thorough fix of [JDK-8353433](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8353433) which got added to avoid a test failure for an ISO 4217 Amendment 176 update. See [JDK-8353579](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8353579) and [this comment](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8353433?focusedId=14771442&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-14771442) for details.
> 
> I've mostly applied hunks manually and omitted the test for JDK-8149452 and the related `jdk/make/src/classes/build/tools/cldrconverter/CLDRConverter.java` changes.
> 
> Since this also fixes JDK-8353433, the change to the `CurrencyData.properties` has been revered (see separate commit). Backports of JDK-7102969 and JDK-8157138 fix the `java/util/Currency/ValidateISO4217.java` test as well.
> 
> Testing:
> - [x] `jdk/test/java/util/Currency/` tests
> 
> Thoughts? Please review! Thanks in advance.

@gnu-andrew Could you please review this? Thanks!

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/660#issuecomment-2958417985

From sgehwolf at openjdk.org  Tue Jun 10 10:09:35 2025
From: sgehwolf at openjdk.org (Severin Gehwolf)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:09:35 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8351624: [8u] Xerces-J version wrong in
 THIRD_PARTY_README after JDK-7150324
In-Reply-To: <wmsPcnWLy34WIudvBXy5G6pGhhoaPGHGZZfDsvgIGNo=.20f34a4b-b8ff-48cf-8bfa-21eda4bf7e6e@github.com>
References: <wmsPcnWLy34WIudvBXy5G6pGhhoaPGHGZZfDsvgIGNo=.20f34a4b-b8ff-48cf-8bfa-21eda4bf7e6e@github.com>
Message-ID: <xsnasSt17Ldk_mXUZbzlScscgM1h1pdCBNJxJsjAotQ=.57ec3431-418b-4373-9393-575e19a93f49@github.com>

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:12:22 GMT, Taizo Kurashige <tkurashige at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This PR fixes the wrong version of Xerces-J.
> The version of Xerces-J became 2.7.1 in JDK-7150324, but it is 2.10.0 in THIRD_PARTY_README.
> Just fix THIRD_PARTY_README, no risk.
> 
> Thanks

Looks good to me. Reasoning explained in the bug makes sense.

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

Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/636#pullrequestreview-2912838071

From tkurashige at openjdk.org  Tue Jun 10 12:29:38 2025
From: tkurashige at openjdk.org (Taizo Kurashige)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:29:38 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8351624: [8u] Xerces-J version wrong in
 THIRD_PARTY_README after JDK-7150324
In-Reply-To: <wmsPcnWLy34WIudvBXy5G6pGhhoaPGHGZZfDsvgIGNo=.20f34a4b-b8ff-48cf-8bfa-21eda4bf7e6e@github.com>
References: <wmsPcnWLy34WIudvBXy5G6pGhhoaPGHGZZfDsvgIGNo=.20f34a4b-b8ff-48cf-8bfa-21eda4bf7e6e@github.com>
Message-ID: <qSbEeb33A0ovsetT3uuEpjsg98tsHfqk4oz-9fuV-0I=.189c1a5c-8208-4e97-8997-ade2b4e2c346@github.com>

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:12:22 GMT, Taizo Kurashige <tkurashige at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This PR fixes the wrong version of Xerces-J.
> The version of Xerces-J became 2.7.1 in JDK-7150324, but it is 2.10.0 in THIRD_PARTY_README.
> Just fix THIRD_PARTY_README, no risk.
> 
> Thanks

Thank you for your review!

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/636#issuecomment-2959007646

From duke at openjdk.org  Tue Jun 10 13:05:36 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (duke)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:05:36 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8351624: [8u] Xerces-J version wrong in
 THIRD_PARTY_README after JDK-7150324
In-Reply-To: <wmsPcnWLy34WIudvBXy5G6pGhhoaPGHGZZfDsvgIGNo=.20f34a4b-b8ff-48cf-8bfa-21eda4bf7e6e@github.com>
References: <wmsPcnWLy34WIudvBXy5G6pGhhoaPGHGZZfDsvgIGNo=.20f34a4b-b8ff-48cf-8bfa-21eda4bf7e6e@github.com>
Message-ID: <m_9H_tFes0CfHb_v2OxAnm30tqdzSfOKT3on7-DKAFs=.356c28d2-ae0a-4857-8924-30250ecbe6d8@github.com>

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:12:22 GMT, Taizo Kurashige <tkurashige at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This PR fixes the wrong version of Xerces-J.
> The version of Xerces-J became 2.7.1 in JDK-7150324, but it is 2.10.0 in THIRD_PARTY_README.
> Just fix THIRD_PARTY_README, no risk.
> 
> Thanks

@kurashige23 
Your change (at version 70e695ea9602801326b9354a583ee08703c59ae7) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/636#issuecomment-2959127121

From tkurashige at openjdk.org  Tue Jun 10 14:10:44 2025
From: tkurashige at openjdk.org (Taizo Kurashige)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:10:44 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Integrated: 8351624: [8u] Xerces-J version wrong in
 THIRD_PARTY_README after JDK-7150324
In-Reply-To: <wmsPcnWLy34WIudvBXy5G6pGhhoaPGHGZZfDsvgIGNo=.20f34a4b-b8ff-48cf-8bfa-21eda4bf7e6e@github.com>
References: <wmsPcnWLy34WIudvBXy5G6pGhhoaPGHGZZfDsvgIGNo=.20f34a4b-b8ff-48cf-8bfa-21eda4bf7e6e@github.com>
Message-ID: <D7mEOizXiTf1AbBZPQa8B6JDF5y3DJv9YMA7Re78G0Y=.6509472a-96ab-44ad-bc1d-06183209a0ba@github.com>

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:12:22 GMT, Taizo Kurashige <tkurashige at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This PR fixes the wrong version of Xerces-J.
> The version of Xerces-J became 2.7.1 in JDK-7150324, but it is 2.10.0 in THIRD_PARTY_README.
> Just fix THIRD_PARTY_README, no risk.
> 
> Thanks

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: 4f923420
Author:    Taizo Kurashige <tkurashige at openjdk.org>
Committer: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/commit/4f9234206475401978f3cc33286cbc41f2c8bc1b
Stats:     1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod

8351624: [8u] Xerces-J version wrong in THIRD_PARTY_README after JDK-7150324

Reviewed-by: sgehwolf

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/636

From duke at openjdk.org  Fri Jun 13 14:25:20 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:25:20 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots
Message-ID: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>

Not a clean backport of [JDK-8359170](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359170) from 11. This is a late CPU25_07-critical-approved enhancement request to include root certificates that are already widely used.

The backport is not clean as some files have changed locations in 8. 

Also **I removed the `/manual` stanza from the tests in `CAInterop.java` and the newly added `SectigoCSRootCAs.java`**, since [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) has not yet been backported to jdk8u.

`jdk_security_infra` tests:
6 failed (possibly due to the reasons described in [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441): network timeouts, expired certificates, ...) unrelated.  Modified and new tests pass:

[...]
Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/SectigoCSRootCAs.java <---
Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java <---
Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrusteccca
Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsroote46 <---
Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsrootr46 <---
Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrustrsaca
Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/DTrustCA.java
Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
TEST STATS: name=jdk_security_infra  run=56  pass=50  fail=6


`jdk_security`:
3 failed, unrelated.

FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/KeyStore/SecretKeysBasic.sh
FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/Signature/TestDSAKeyLength.java
FAILED: sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TimestampCheck.java
TEST STATS: name=jdk_security  run=1120  pass=1117  fail=3

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

Commit messages:
 - Backport e00605fcebe7b2716db6b95e7bcae47d85b88dce

Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75/files
  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk8u&pr=75&range=00
  Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359170
  Stats: 479 lines in 7 files changed: 475 ins; 0 del; 4 mod
  Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75.diff
  Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u.git pull/75/head:pull/75

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75

From duke at openjdk.org  Fri Jun 13 14:57:04 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:57:04 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots
In-Reply-To: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
References: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
Message-ID: <hxua-o-v94azL27fAgbarccokiYBUy9pximspQ3jZjc=.b8ae2fa4-3e9e-4514-ace7-27ebf540a0d9@github.com>

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:18:40 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Not a clean backport of [JDK-8359170](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359170) from 11. This is a late CPU25_07-critical-approved enhancement request to include root certificates that are already widely used.
> 
> The backport is not clean as some files have changed locations in 8. 
> 
> Also **I removed the `/manual` stanza from the tests in `CAInterop.java` and the newly added `SectigoCSRootCAs.java`**, since [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) has not yet been backported to jdk8u.
> 
> `jdk_security_infra` tests:
> 6 failed (possibly due to the reasons described in [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441): network timeouts, expired certificates, ...) unrelated.  Modified and new tests pass:
> 
> [...]
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/SectigoCSRootCAs.java <---
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrusteccca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsroote46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsrootr46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrustrsaca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/DTrustCA.java
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security_infra  run=56  pass=50  fail=6
> 
> 
> `jdk_security`:
> 3 failed, unrelated.
> 
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/KeyStore/SecretKeysBasic.sh
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/Signature/TestDSAKeyLength.java
> FAILED: sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TimestampCheck.java
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security  run=1120  pass=1117  fail=3

Thinking of it twice, I think we want [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) too. 

It's weird having `CAInterop.java` with only some manual tests. Let me know what you think and I may redo the PR including it.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75#issuecomment-2970657756

From duke at openjdk.org  Fri Jun 13 18:09:04 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 18:09:04 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots
In-Reply-To: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
References: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
Message-ID: <DpHStp41d6MjR5-ZWZf8Yq06CTr4IwA6gsoWlWaWuIM=.7de44f35-a1c6-4521-867d-e25a018c1fd5@github.com>

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:18:40 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Not a clean backport of [JDK-8359170](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359170) from 11. This is a late CPU25_07-critical-approved enhancement request to include root certificates that are already widely used.
> 
> The backport is not clean as some files have changed locations in 8. 
> 
> Also **I removed the `/manual` stanza from the tests in `CAInterop.java` and the newly added `SectigoCSRootCAs.java`**, since [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) has not yet been backported to jdk8u.
> 
> `jdk_security_infra` tests:
> 6 failed (possibly due to the reasons described in [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441): network timeouts, expired certificates, ...) unrelated.  Modified and new tests pass:
> 
> [...]
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/SectigoCSRootCAs.java <---
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrusteccca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsroote46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsrootr46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrustrsaca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/DTrustCA.java
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security_infra  run=56  pass=50  fail=6
> 
> 
> `jdk_security`:
> 3 failed, unrelated.
> 
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/KeyStore/SecretKeysBasic.sh
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/Signature/TestDSAKeyLength.java
> FAILED: sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TimestampCheck.java
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security  run=1120  pass=1117  fail=3

Let's make it draft at the moment...

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75#issuecomment-2971110583

From duke at openjdk.org  Fri Jun 13 18:14:36 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 18:14:36 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots
In-Reply-To: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
References: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
Message-ID: <mNqvWCRX_SWX4f7OME96dOS5XbcpckJpQMtDJ8R9t1Y=.45444c0e-81b2-442a-89c5-87f620a733c9@github.com>

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:18:40 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Not a clean backport of [JDK-8359170](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359170) from 11. This is a late CPU25_07-critical-approved enhancement request to include root certificates that are already widely used.
> 
> The backport is not clean as some files have changed locations in 8. 
> 
> Also **I removed the `/manual` stanza from the tests in `CAInterop.java` and the newly added `SectigoCSRootCAs.java`**, since [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) has not yet been backported to jdk8u.
> 
> `jdk_security_infra` tests:
> 6 failed (possibly due to the reasons described in [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441): network timeouts, expired certificates, ...) unrelated.  Modified and new tests pass:
> 
> [...]
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/SectigoCSRootCAs.java <---
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrusteccca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsroote46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsrootr46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrustrsaca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/DTrustCA.java
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security_infra  run=56  pass=50  fail=6
> 
> 
> `jdk_security`:
> 3 failed, unrelated.
> 
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/KeyStore/SecretKeysBasic.sh
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/Signature/TestDSAKeyLength.java
> FAILED: sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TimestampCheck.java
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security  run=1120  pass=1117  fail=3

It seems the `manual/` text was also removed  from `CAInterop.java` in the past when backporting from 11 (see https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/pull/589, for an example), so this is good to review now.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75#issuecomment-2971166896

From andrew at openjdk.org  Sat Jun 14 02:06:06 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 02:06:06 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots
In-Reply-To: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
References: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
Message-ID: <UA4VQXt5_5PTDppjJUl8m4KqdZU20fKV8sKBMJ0hdV8=.59ccc6b8-f127-46cd-b3a7-75e8681a8be3@github.com>

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:18:40 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Not a clean backport of [JDK-8359170](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359170) from 11. This is a late CPU25_07-critical-approved enhancement request to include root certificates that are already widely used.
> 
> The backport is not clean as some files have changed locations in 8. 
> 
> Also **I removed the `/manual` stanza from the tests in `CAInterop.java` and the newly added `SectigoCSRootCAs.java`**, since [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) has not yet been backported to jdk8u.
> 
> `jdk_security_infra` tests:
> 6 failed (possibly due to the reasons described in [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441): network timeouts, expired certificates, ...) unrelated.  Modified and new tests pass:
> 
> [...]
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/SectigoCSRootCAs.java <---
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrusteccca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsroote46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsrootr46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrustrsaca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/DTrustCA.java
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security_infra  run=56  pass=50  fail=6
> 
> 
> `jdk_security`:
> 3 failed, unrelated.
> 
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/KeyStore/SecretKeysBasic.sh
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/Signature/TestDSAKeyLength.java
> FAILED: sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TimestampCheck.java
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security  run=1120  pass=1117  fail=3

This looks correct, with `/manual` removed as appropriate.

The failing tests are fixed by [JDK-8345414](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345414) which I'll be bringing to 8u once it's in 11u. As can be seen from the 11u PR - https://github.com/openjdk/jdk11u-dev/pull/3048 - the tests failing here fail there too. I don't see them being run in the 11u PR for this issue and I suspect they don't get run often, because `\manual` has been used to hide the failures.

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

Marked as reviewed by andrew (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75#pullrequestreview-2927008095
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75#issuecomment-2972110214

From andrew at openjdk.org  Sat Jun 14 02:06:06 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 02:06:06 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots
In-Reply-To: <hxua-o-v94azL27fAgbarccokiYBUy9pximspQ3jZjc=.b8ae2fa4-3e9e-4514-ace7-27ebf540a0d9@github.com>
References: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
 <hxua-o-v94azL27fAgbarccokiYBUy9pximspQ3jZjc=.b8ae2fa4-3e9e-4514-ace7-27ebf540a0d9@github.com>
Message-ID: <uHAiivtgsqtgRrveLtbKcnNsHQTIcddMz4-UETF58mI=.4a8f5a6b-ff06-4277-a6a0-d184f2b796b6@github.com>

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:54:12 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Thinking of it twice, I think we want [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) too.
> 

No we don't. I have already rejected a backport of this.

> It's weird having `CAInterop.java` with only some manual tests. Let me know what you think and I may redo the PR including it.

I don't see any manual tests in `CAInterop.java`, either in the current 8u version or added by this patch.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75#issuecomment-2972103676

From duke at openjdk.org  Mon Jun 16 09:34:36 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (duke)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:34:36 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots
In-Reply-To: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
References: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
Message-ID: <ccKkEZHLz9TwEVuxzyAFyccoFmdIPO92cFE5YZD2Ryw=.47876baa-5ea7-4340-b332-d586b90e8686@github.com>

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:18:40 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Not a clean backport of [JDK-8359170](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359170) from 11. This is a late CPU25_07-critical-approved enhancement request to include root certificates that are already widely used.
> 
> The backport is not clean as some files have changed locations in 8. 
> 
> Also **I removed the `/manual` stanza from the tests in `CAInterop.java` and the newly added `SectigoCSRootCAs.java`**, since [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) has not yet been backported to jdk8u.
> 
> `jdk_security_infra` tests:
> 6 failed (possibly due to the reasons described in [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441): network timeouts, expired certificates, ...) unrelated.  Modified and new tests pass:
> 
> [...]
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/SectigoCSRootCAs.java <---
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrusteccca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsroote46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsrootr46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrustrsaca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/DTrustCA.java
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security_infra  run=56  pass=50  fail=6
> 
> 
> `jdk_security`:
> 3 failed, unrelated.
> 
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/KeyStore/SecretKeysBasic.sh
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/Signature/TestDSAKeyLength.java
> FAILED: sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TimestampCheck.java
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security  run=1120  pass=1117  fail=3

@vieiro 
Your change (at version b6f2dde31822d0f747bbb6395fe1687aeb9958c5) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75#issuecomment-2975797028

From duke at openjdk.org  Mon Jun 16 09:37:37 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:37:37 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots
In-Reply-To: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
References: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
Message-ID: <0QuPWKJ8xmDZOuCmX31Gfg8w9FyIUqsLW4SUJTjAKME=.00b95d4b-dff1-4ced-885c-0ec8fed95f1f@github.com>

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:18:40 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Not a clean backport of [JDK-8359170](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359170) from 11. This is a late CPU25_07-critical-approved enhancement request to include root certificates that are already widely used.
> 
> The backport is not clean as some files have changed locations in 8. 
> 
> Also **I removed the `/manual` stanza from the tests in `CAInterop.java` and the newly added `SectigoCSRootCAs.java`**, since [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) has not yet been backported to jdk8u.
> 
> `jdk_security_infra` tests:
> 6 failed (possibly due to the reasons described in [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441): network timeouts, expired certificates, ...) unrelated.  Modified and new tests pass:
> 
> [...]
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/SectigoCSRootCAs.java <---
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrusteccca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsroote46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsrootr46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrustrsaca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/DTrustCA.java
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security_infra  run=56  pass=50  fail=6
> 
> 
> `jdk_security`:
> 3 failed, unrelated.
> 
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/KeyStore/SecretKeysBasic.sh
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/Signature/TestDSAKeyLength.java
> FAILED: sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TimestampCheck.java
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security  run=1120  pass=1117  fail=3

> The failing tests are fixed by [JDK-8345414](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345414) which I'll be bringing to 8u once it's in 11u. As can be seen from the 11u PR - [openjdk/jdk11u-dev#3048](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk11u-dev/pull/3048) - the tests failing here fail there too. I don't see them being run in the 11u PR for this issue and I suspect they don't get run often, because `\manual` has been used to hide the failures.

That's great news. I'm not sure JDK-8345414 is enough to remove all the errors in `jdk_security_infra` tests in JDK8, though (I havent tried it either). 

Also we may want to remove some additional `/manual` stuff and run them by default in 11 and 8. The less we hide under the carpet the better.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75#issuecomment-2975813567

From duke at openjdk.org  Mon Jun 16 15:15:43 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Antonio Vieiro)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:15:43 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] Integrated: 8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots
In-Reply-To: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
References: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
Message-ID: <11vq2wfpAOL1IrGw_TNk2Nun2OvDBaynsv41rXQhKr4=.8c7789b0-f138-4967-b529-7c9b6fe10d02@github.com>

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:18:40 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Not a clean backport of [JDK-8359170](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359170) from 11. This is a late CPU25_07-critical-approved enhancement request to include root certificates that are already widely used.
> 
> The backport is not clean as some files have changed locations in 8. 
> 
> Also **I removed the `/manual` stanza from the tests in `CAInterop.java` and the newly added `SectigoCSRootCAs.java`**, since [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) has not yet been backported to jdk8u.
> 
> `jdk_security_infra` tests:
> 6 failed (possibly due to the reasons described in [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441): network timeouts, expired certificates, ...) unrelated.  Modified and new tests pass:
> 
> [...]
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/EmSignRootG2CA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/HaricaCA.java
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/SectigoCSRootCAs.java <---
> Passed: sun/security/lib/cacerts/VerifyCACerts.java <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrusteccca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsroote46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#sectigotlsrootr46 <---
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/CAInterop.java#usertrustrsaca
> Passed: security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/DTrustCA.java
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> Test results: passed: 50; failed: 6
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security_infra  run=56  pass=50  fail=6
> 
> 
> `jdk_security`:
> 3 failed, unrelated.
> 
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/KeyStore/SecretKeysBasic.sh
> FAILED: sun/security/pkcs11/Signature/TestDSAKeyLength.java
> FAILED: sun/security/tools/jarsigner/TimestampCheck.java
> TEST STATS: name=jdk_security  run=1120  pass=1117  fail=3

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: 1e912a12
Author:    Antonio Vieiro <avieirov at redhat.com>
Committer: Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/commit/1e912a129c4074dac8bedbcb77dcb2a8284f5228
Stats:     479 lines in 7 files changed: 475 ins; 0 del; 4 mod

8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots

Reviewed-by: andrew
Backport-of: e00605fcebe7b2716db6b95e7bcae47d85b88dce

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75

From andrew at openjdk.org  Mon Jun 16 15:15:41 2025
From: andrew at openjdk.org (Andrew John Hughes)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:15:41 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u] RFR: 8359170: Add 2 TLS and 2 CS Sectigo roots
In-Reply-To: <0QuPWKJ8xmDZOuCmX31Gfg8w9FyIUqsLW4SUJTjAKME=.00b95d4b-dff1-4ced-885c-0ec8fed95f1f@github.com>
References: <og8pkMoOlFwawOR_0RfLGZs-ZiDZjNaXkhiixMrTn4E=.d6844ab1-5880-4935-9b32-258948f52954@github.com>
 <0QuPWKJ8xmDZOuCmX31Gfg8w9FyIUqsLW4SUJTjAKME=.00b95d4b-dff1-4ced-885c-0ec8fed95f1f@github.com>
Message-ID: <-TtXjiVFTjGjhSHLnjAvq-888n8TwtEx04n7JM9mX2E=.a0f5b39a-1176-4718-b581-c422f64db740@github.com>

On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:34:32 GMT, Antonio Vieiro <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> > The failing tests are fixed by [JDK-8345414](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8345414) which I'll be bringing to 8u once it's in 11u. As can be seen from the 11u PR - [openjdk/jdk11u-dev#3048](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk11u-dev/pull/3048) - the tests failing here fail there too. I don't see them being run in the 11u PR for this issue and I suspect they don't get run often, because `\manual` has been used to hide the failures.
> 
> That's great news. I'm not sure JDK-8345414 is enough to remove all the errors in `jdk_security_infra` tests in JDK8, though (I havent tried it either).
> 
> Also we may want to remove some additional `/manual` stuff and run them by default in 11 and 8. The less we hide under the carpet the better.

FWIW, no objection from me to reverting [JDK-8334441](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8334441) in 11u. It is better to turn off individual failing cases temporarily, as we did before, than hide the lot.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u/pull/75#issuecomment-2977041946

From duke at openjdk.org  Mon Jun 16 19:16:36 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (duke)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:16:36 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8339414: Fix JDK-8202369 incorrect backport for
 8u [v2]
In-Reply-To: <pbIjIXC-SSOgZMjx96sYtEoH35wsqNgxOTl1BavLqHY=.d28c0b7d-d5a2-4f89-91cd-582b57b4cf9e@github.com>
References: <3ZHDRC4zQDNwDBQH8Q4ldgqc7TAqvMHbMyrl0jzy_eU=.296dc850-ead7-4b8e-8e1a-bb8d86200418@github.com>
 <pbIjIXC-SSOgZMjx96sYtEoH35wsqNgxOTl1BavLqHY=.d28c0b7d-d5a2-4f89-91cd-582b57b4cf9e@github.com>
Message-ID: <ulUZu3gM0F97SOPlWF6XL08y3pxCy2izFKjJd3WRfqw=.9e43cc9c-f6e0-4bc7-8c30-a673240018dd@github.com>

On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 23:27:41 GMT, Thomas Fitzsimmons <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> There is a large `#ifdef` in JDK 8's `Inet4AddressImpl.c`:
>> 
>> 
>> #if defined(__GLIBC__) || (defined(__FreeBSD__) && (__FreeBSD_version >= 601104))
>> #define HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R   1
>> #endif
>> 
>> #if defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)
>> [... 261 lines ...]
>> #else /* defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R) */
>> [... ~ 244 similar lines ...]
>> #endif /* _ALLBSD_SOURCE */
>> 
>> 
>> When the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8201369 was backported to `8`, the second branch of the large `#ifdef` in `Inet4AddressImpl.c` was not changed at the same time, which is incorrect, since reverse lookup should only ever happen on `Solaris`, according to the description of `JDK-8201369`.
>> 
>> I used the `JDK 11` `unix/native/libnet/Inet4AddressImpl.c` implementation; after this change, the only difference between `11`'s `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` and the `defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` one will be the use of `JVM_GetHostName` in `8` versus `gethostname` in `11`.
>> 
>> I decided to update the `hostlen` argument to `getnameinfo` from `NI_MAXHOST` to `sizeof(hostname)` to fix https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8202181 for this function.  I do not have a `Solaris` machine to test on, but this matches `11`'s `getnameinfo` calls, and is correct given `hostname[NI_MAXHOST] = '\0'`.
>> 
>> The resulting behaviour should be the same, other than the reverse lookup only being performed on `Solaris`.
>> 
>> The implementations of `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` in each of the `#ifdef` branches diverge already because the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7112670 (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/commit/a62dd6282b7a0f1f3c75dad90385783b93d30e61) was only applied to the second branch.
>> 
>> Probably the upper `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` implementation could be made identical to the lower, but I do not want to do that, just in case `NI_MAXHOST` is preferred to `sizeof(hostname)` on `!defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` operating systems.
>
> Thomas Fitzsimmons has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Revert partial backport of JDK-8202181

@fitzsim 
Your change (at version 0857914dfa615e60e7d831daf9a0505fa06dd7b8) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661#issuecomment-2977791623

From duke at openjdk.org  Mon Jun 16 23:06:37 2025
From: duke at openjdk.org (Thomas Fitzsimmons)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:06:37 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Integrated: 8339414: Fix JDK-8202369 incorrect backport
 for 8u
In-Reply-To: <3ZHDRC4zQDNwDBQH8Q4ldgqc7TAqvMHbMyrl0jzy_eU=.296dc850-ead7-4b8e-8e1a-bb8d86200418@github.com>
References: <3ZHDRC4zQDNwDBQH8Q4ldgqc7TAqvMHbMyrl0jzy_eU=.296dc850-ead7-4b8e-8e1a-bb8d86200418@github.com>
Message-ID: <6YR03wUWbw00ifc3LcS7wYUl0I5rsy4R7cJEJUQ4wqk=.eefa1eb6-54c0-45dd-a03f-94f62d0542e9@github.com>

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 20:44:19 GMT, Thomas Fitzsimmons <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> There is a large `#ifdef` in JDK 8's `Inet4AddressImpl.c`:
> 
> 
> #if defined(__GLIBC__) || (defined(__FreeBSD__) && (__FreeBSD_version >= 601104))
> #define HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R   1
> #endif
> 
> #if defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)
> [... 261 lines ...]
> #else /* defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) && !defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R) */
> [... ~ 244 similar lines ...]
> #endif /* _ALLBSD_SOURCE */
> 
> 
> When the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8201369 was backported to `8`, the second branch of the large `#ifdef` in `Inet4AddressImpl.c` was not changed at the same time, which is incorrect, since reverse lookup should only ever happen on `Solaris`, according to the description of `JDK-8201369`.
> 
> I used the `JDK 11` `unix/native/libnet/Inet4AddressImpl.c` implementation; after this change, the only difference between `11`'s `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` and the `defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` one will be the use of `JVM_GetHostName` in `8` versus `gethostname` in `11`.
> 
> I decided to update the `hostlen` argument to `getnameinfo` from `NI_MAXHOST` to `sizeof(hostname)` to fix https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8202181 for this function.  I do not have a `Solaris` machine to test on, but this matches `11`'s `getnameinfo` calls, and is correct given `hostname[NI_MAXHOST] = '\0'`.
> 
> The resulting behaviour should be the same, other than the reverse lookup only being performed on `Solaris`.
> 
> The implementations of `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` in each of the `#ifdef` branches diverge already because the fix for https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7112670 (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk8u-dev/commit/a62dd6282b7a0f1f3c75dad90385783b93d30e61) was only applied to the second branch.
> 
> Probably the upper `Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName` implementation could be made identical to the lower, but I do not want to do that, just in case `NI_MAXHOST` is preferred to `sizeof(hostname)` on `!defined(HAS_GLIBC_GETHOSTBY_R)` operating systems.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: 51b63079
Author:    Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim at redhat.com>
Committer: Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org>
URL:       https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/commit/51b6307937d9584f8690e4916444e479eeafff28
Stats:     26 lines in 1 file changed: 9 ins; 13 del; 4 mod

8339414: Fix JDK-8202369 incorrect backport for 8u

Reviewed-by: andrew

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/661

From tkurashige at openjdk.org  Mon Jun 16 23:55:37 2025
From: tkurashige at openjdk.org (Taizo Kurashige)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:55:37 GMT
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8160767: [TEST_BUG]
 java/awt/Frame/MaximizedToIconified/MaximizedToIconified.java [v2]
In-Reply-To: <0P8n8apv72eGswpJxPhk456YXSSIkgljbKSUuLti8tU=.1cc2476c-53bb-41d6-92d7-4c1951c3c9c2@github.com>
References: <gHlN50LDzm6hqOPtQPbai-Hyh2DBph_xHiL9VVZ4Wgk=.4118313e-e6b6-4d3e-b22a-5f4c88052c4d@github.com>
 <0P8n8apv72eGswpJxPhk456YXSSIkgljbKSUuLti8tU=.1cc2476c-53bb-41d6-92d7-4c1951c3c9c2@github.com>
Message-ID: <21sXsrSOfLEfwMlAnDbYK4mBhYu8w-xCOOUg382gcvM=.17865ab6-8262-4574-af65-d55462b74244@github.com>

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 01:56:30 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <serb at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Taizo Kurashige 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 four additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - Fix to use ExtendedRobot
>>  - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into fix_MaximizedToIconified
>>  - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into fix_MaximizedToIconified
>>  - Backport b46b19cb58d8b43e57cd81a0588d4e18ad6afa9a
>
> jdk/test/java/awt/Frame/MaximizedToIconified/MaximizedToIconified.java line 55:
> 
>> 53:     private static void checkState(Frame frame, int state) {
>> 54:         frame.setExtendedState(state);
>> 55:         robot.waitForIdle();
> 
> I'm not sure this will be enough for jdk8. https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8056911 was not ported to jdk8, so Robot.waitForIdle() uses a "dummy" implementation.

@mrserb

I'm sorry to bother you, If you have time, I would like you to check my comment.
Thanks.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/637#discussion_r2151078179