Code Review Request 6203816 and 6720456

Weijun Wang at
Fri Nov 19 16:45:34 PST 2010

I'm fine with all code changes.


On 11/20/2010 08:00 AM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
> On 11/17/10 19:31, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> On 11/18/2010 11:00 AM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
>>> Thanks for the lightning fast review!
>>> TBD means "to be determined at runtime". Different machines w/ different
>>> versions of Solaris may support different key sizes. So, I use TBD to
>>> indicate the key sizes which may only be supported by the newer versions
>>> of Solairs release.
>> I see. So for a test failure (i.e. expected != actual) on those TBD
>> tests, there is no way to find out whether it's because the key size
>> is not supported or some other real keypair generation error?
> For the TBD tests, we sort of just let them run, i.e. through the
> getInstance(), init(..), generateKey(), and don't enforce the actual
> result to match the expected result.
> Our current java API doesn't have the capability to query the provider
> supported key ranges, so there isn't an easy way to find out at runtime.
> Enhancing the test framework for this is possible but I doubt we'll get
> to it given our resource constraints. So, I just handle it this way
> using the TBD value.
> If you have some more comments, let me know. Otherwise, I'll be putting
> them back shortly...and I'll file another CR to address what other
> concerns that you have...
> Thanks!
> Valerie
>>> I thought you are on vacation? If not, there are some new PKCS11 test
>>> failures which seems related to your resource string changes. I'll take
>>> a shot at them if you are on vacation...
>> Yes I am on vacation, but staying at home. I've written a mail to Lana
>> on the PKCS11 test failures. It seems they haven't used the new
>> sunpkcs11.jar, maybe their jdk/make/closed is still not updated.
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>> Valerie
>>> On 11/17/10 17:00, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2010 07:31 AM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Max,
>>>>> Can you please help reviewing the following two regression test fixes?
>>>>> 6203816: Can not run
>>>>> test/java/security/Security/
>>>>> from the command line
>>>>> Webrev:
>>>> Fix looks fine.
>>>>> I noticed that would fail when the TESTJAVA env
>>>>> variable is
>>>>> set to a JDK instead of a JRE. So, I fixed it here as well.
>>>>> 6720456: New 4150 may have larger blowfish keysizes
>>>>> Webrev:
>>>> Haven't looked into the base class PKCS11Test yet, so "TBD" means you
>>>> don't care if it succeed or fails? I guess if a bitsize is not
>>>> supported, the exception should be different and you can detect it and
>>>> mark PASS?
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Max
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Valerie

More information about the security-dev mailing list