RFR: 8313765: Invalid CEN header (invalid zip64 extra data field size) [v2]

[Alan Bateman]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 21:38:02 GMT, Volker Simonis <simonis at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hi Volker,
>> 
>> I understand your point and I had done that  previously  but decided I  did not like the flow of the code that way which is why I moved the check.  I prefer to leave it as is.
>
> I don't think this is a question of "taste" because `isZip64ExtBlockSizeValid()` suggests that the method will check for *valid* sizes and to my understanding `0` is not a valid input. This method might also be called from other places in the future which do not handle the zero case appropriately.
> 
> In any case, I'm ready to accept this as a case of "Disagree and Commit"  :) but in that case please update at least the comment below to something like "*..Note we do not need to check blockSize is >= 8 as we know its length is at least 8 by now*" because "*..from the call to isZip64ExtBlockSizeValid()*" isn't true any more.

I think I agree with Volker that it would be better if isZip64ExtBlockSizeValid continued to return false for block size 0.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15273#discussion_r1294436616