[9] RFR:8130360: Add tests to verify 3rd party security providers if they are in signed/unsigned modular JARs

[Valerie Peng]

Right, that'd be my expectation as well. Sounds like everything works.
I will change to look at your latest webrev.
Valerie

On 12/8/2015 6:09 AM, Sibabrata Sahoo wrote:
> Hi Valerie,
>
> Here is the updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ralexander/8130360/webrev.00/
>
> Now the modular behavior for the test works as per expectation through JAKE build with the following condition.
> If the provider jar is available under ModulePath then the "java.security" file should have the provider configuration entry as ProviderName while in case of ClassPath the entry should hold the full class name.
>
> Thanks,
> Siba
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valerie Peng
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 4:46 AM
> To: Sibabrata Sahoo
> Cc: Alan Bateman; security-dev at openjdk.java.net; jigsaw-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: [9] RFR:8130360: Add tests to verify 3rd party security providers if they are in signed/unsigned modular JARs
>
> Siba,
>
> I have just started to review this webrev and not done yet.
> As for your question, the java.security file in OpenJDK9 still uses the provider class names instead of provider names. Are you talking about the java.security file in Jigsaw? Which build (OpenJDK or Jigsaw) have you tested against. I am pretty sure that I tested the 3rd party provider on classpath setting when I worked on the 7191662 changes.
>
> Supposedly, if the jar files are available on class path, then you should specify its full *class name* in the java.security file for it to be instantiated. Otherwise, how would it find the class? Only the classes discovered by ServiceLoader can be identified using the provider name (which is different from the class name referred above). So, in your scenario, that would be "provider.TestJCEProvider" instead of "TEST".
>
> If you still run into problems, try enable the java security debug flag and u should get a good  idea why it isn't loaded. Let me know if you still have questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Valerie
>
> On 11/30/2015 6:47 AM, Sibabrata Sahoo wrote:
>> I would like to know more about this. As far, I can see the "java.security" provider configuration available with JDK9, it holds provider names instead of provider class names. In that case how it resolve the fall back?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Siba
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alan Bateman
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 4:54 PM
>> To: Sibabrata Sahoo; security-dev at openjdk.java.net;
>> jigsaw-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: [9] RFR:8130360: Add tests to verify 3rd party security
>> providers if they are in signed/unsigned modular JARs
>>
>> On 30/11/2015 11:13, Sibabrata Sahoo wrote:
>>> Here is the updated webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmotrak/siba/8130360/webrev.02/
>>>
>>> I have one question:
>>> What should be the behavior when the older version of 3rd party JCE provider jar file(without service descriptor "META-INF/services/*"&   working with<= JDK8) configured by "java.security" file, will be place in CLASS_PATH, running through JDK9 and the client is using Security.getProvider() to look for the provider?
>>>
>>> Currently the scenario fails to find the JCE provider. Is this right behavior? If it is, then jdk9 is not backward compatible to find the security provider provided through older jar files from CLASS_PATH.
>>>
>> The JCE work in JDK 9 (via JDK-7191662) was meant to address this point by falling back and attempting to load the class name specified via the security.provider.<N>   properties in the java.security file. I'm sure Valerie can say more about this.
>>
>> -Alan