Code review request, 7106773: 512 bits RSA key cannot work withSHA384 and SHA512

Xuelei Fan xuelei.fan at oracle.com
Wed Jan 11 03:42:32 PST 2012


On 1/11/2012 7:12 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/11/2012 06:55 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>> On 1/11/2012 6:42 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/11/2012 06:02 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/2012 5:50 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>>> Hi Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a brief look at the webrev. Looks like this Lengthable thing is the
>>>>> only change after your previous webrev. Please confirm.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> But I want something bigger. I would like to know if it is possible to
>>>>> add this keysize() method deep down into the very basic Key interface.
>>>>> If Key can have a method called getEncoded() I think this means it
>>>>> normally has a concrete form and surely has a publicly acceptable
>>>>> keysize() attribute. In JDK 8 we have default implementation for new
>>>>> interface methods. Is this issue a good candidate?
>>>>>
>>>> As Key is an java interface, we may not be able to add one more method
>>>> for compatibility reason. We may export the "Lengthable"/"Measurable"
>>>> interface in JDK 8. It's possible to implement Lengthable in all
>>>> sub-classes of Key in Oracle provider, but as would involve too many
>>>> changes. As we need to backport this fix into JDK 7, I think we'd better
>>>> consider the big picture in the future.
>>>
>>> Then I think the previous webrev is enough for JDK 7, and for JDK 8, we
>>> simply add a new keysize() method to Key.
>>>
>> If we add one new method to Key interfaces. The providers based on JDK 7
>> and previous releases would have to update their codes so as to
>> implement this new method. As will result in serious compatibility issues.
> 
> I am talking about the new default method language feature in JDK 8 ([1]
> Section 11, 12). Then the default impl of Key::keySize() returns -1,
> default impl of SecretKey::keySize() returns getEncoded().length()*8, etc.
> 
A great feature!

>>
>> It is possible that we export the "Lengthable" interface, and have
>> Oracle providers support this interface, and suggest other providers to
>> use this interfaces.
>>
>> The previous webrev hurt the performance a little because of reflections.
> 
> Thanks for reminding me this. Yes, those P11 and MSCAPI keys. This
> webrev is still necessary, and the code changes are fine except for
> 
> 1. SignatureAndHashAlgorithm.java:283, you left a System.out.println
> 
> 2. KeyLength.java:58, more System.out.printlns
> 
Should remove them.

> 3. KeyLength.java:88, UnsupportedOperationException, necessary?
> 
I want to reserve the flexibility that we may not be able to get key
size from a hardware device. Yes, the exception are not thrown in our
implementation.

BTW, I will change the interface name from "Lengthable" to "Measurable".

Do you want to review more? If not, I will update the code locally and
push the changes.

Thanks,
Xuelei

> Thanks
> Max
> 
> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/lambda/lambda-state-4.html
> 
>>
>> Xuelei
>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> At least, in KeyLength::getKeySize(), I would like to see "if (key
>>>>> instanceof Lengthable)" to be the first check, and, if possible, the
>>>>> only one needed, at least for keys from providers built in JDK.
>>>>>
>>>> It's OK to check it at first. But as we also need to support other
>>>> providers, I think we'd better also check other types of instance.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Xuelei
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Max
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/11/2012 08:57 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>>>>>> "Measurable" looks like a better name. I will update the name in the
>>>>>> next webrev after this round of code review:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/7106773/webrev.04/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Xuelei
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/10/2012 11:47 PM, Vincent Ryan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/10/12 03:19 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/10/2012 11:09 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It's late night and I'll read it tomorrow. But can you choose another
>>>>>>>>> word instead of Lengthable? Length is not a verb.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ;-) The name took me a lot of time, searching by google, dictionary, and
>>>>>>>> any possible English translation. I have to agree that I failed to find
>>>>>>>> a suitable name. I tried hardly to persuade myself that "lengthable" is
>>>>>>>> also used by someother application code, so it might not too bad to use
>>>>>>>> it here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the word "lengthable", I want to express that the length is
>>>>>>>> measurable. Any suggestion for the better one?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Measurable ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Xuelei
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> ·¢¼þÈË: Xuelei Fan
>>>>>>>>> ·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2012/1/10 22:51
>>>>>>>>> ÊÕ¼þÈË: Weijun Wang
>>>>>>>>> ³­ËÍ: OpenJDK
>>>>>>>>> Ö÷Ìâ: Re: Code review request, 7106773: 512 bits RSA key cannot work
>>>>>>>>> withSHA384 and SHA512
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has been around 50 days passed since the last day we talked about the
>>>>>>>>> issue. Hope you can recall it from the deep memory. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> webrev: http://javaweb.us.oracle.com/~xufan/bugbios/7106773/webrev.04/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this update, as we agreed, a new Oracle private interface was
>>>>>>>>> introduced: sun.security.util.Lengthable, and Lengthable.length() is
>>>>>>>>> defined to get the length an object. sun.security.pkcs11.P11Key and
>>>>>>>>> sun.security.mscapi.Key will implements the interface. As will easy and
>>>>>>>>> speedup (comparing with reflection approach) the getting of key length
>>>>>>>>> of those unextractable keys in hardware device.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the webrev, I should also include another two signed jars,
>>>>>>>>> sunpkcs11.jar and sunmscapi.jar. I will include them when I get the
>>>>>>>>> official signed jars.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Xuelei
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2011 8:41 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I really like this one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2011 08:05 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     How about this approach? This looks very safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also prefer this approach, although it need more updates in PKCS11 and
>>>>>>>>>>> MSCPI source code. If you vote for this approach, I will try to
>>>>>>>>>>> implement it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>




More information about the security-dev mailing list