RFR: 8073108: GHASH Intrinsics

Florian Weimer fweimer at redhat.com
Tue Feb 17 20:05:14 UTC 2015

On 02/17/2015 08:59 PM, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
> On 02/17/2015 12:57 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 02/16/2015 10:11 PM, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ascarpino/8073108/jdk/webrev/
>> I think the “state” field in GHASH should be final.  Is C2 able to
>> eliminate the array bounds checks?  (Although it's not in the inner loop
>> and thus probably not relevant for performance.)
> I'm not sure want you asking about in regard to the bounds checking? Are
> you asking about checking the bounds of "state"?

state[0] and state[1]—I wonder if those expressions need array bounds
checks when compiled.

>> The comment on processBlock(byte[], int, int) is confusing.  I don't
>> understand what it is trying to say.
> That is why I can never proofread my own writing. :)
> I'll fix that up.. What means to say is the method arguments list and
> method name cannot be changed, along with some operations inside the
> method cannot occur or it can break intrinsics.

Yes, that's certainly helpful.  Usually, the JDK does not have hints
pointing to Hotspot intrinsics.  But most of them deal with public APIs
which are frozen anyway.

Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security

More information about the security-dev mailing list