RFR: JDK-8049516: sun.security.provider.SeedGenerator throws ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException

[Xuelei Fan]

 > latch = (latch + 1) & 0x7FFFFFFF;  // Mask the sign bit
I'm fine with it.

BTW, if you like, I may suggest to use a little bit small number for the 
mask, for example 0x1FFFFFFF, so that the counter variable does not 
overflow either.  It works if counter overflow, but better not if we 
want the counter meaningful.

Xuelei


On 9/22/2016 7:29 AM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
> So here are a couple ideas related to your suggestion.
>
> We can leave a simple increment on latch and let it overflow, then in
> the array access do this:
>
> v ^= rndTab[(latch & 0x7FFFFFFF) % 255];
>
> That clears the high order bit and the mod will keep it in the range of
> 0-254.  the lvalue for the mod operation will never go negative.  The
> downside of that is counter will still get assigned a large negative
> value (which as I said earlier could cause another iteration of the main
> loop...not the end of the world since it can only happen 6 times max).
>
> The other approach would be to increment latch and mask off the high
> order bit:
>
> latch = (latch + 1) & 0x7FFFFFFF;  // Mask the sign bit
>
> Then the v^=[latch % 255] is safe as-is and counter doesn't get some
> massively negative value (though it can still overflow across multiple
> iterations of the outer loop).
>
> I like the second approach a little better, personally.  Up-front use of
> the bitwise-and is a little more clear that we're forcing the value to
> be non-negative before we use it as an array index input.  Let me know
> what you think and I'll update the webrev accordingly.
>
> Thanks,
> --Jamil
>
> On 09/21/2016 09:05 AM, Wang Weijun wrote:
>> I am OK with your fix, but I found "(latch + 1) % Integer.MAX_VALUE" a
>> little difficult to understand. Does rndTab[latch & 0xff] also work?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 11:57 PM, Jamil Nimeh <jamil.j.nimeh at oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Max and Xuelei,
>>>
>>> Yesterday I also reached out to the SQE engineer who submitted the
>>> bug, asking if this is an issue he's seen going forward from the
>>> original instance in 8u20.  He said that he hasn't seen this issue
>>> come up since the original bug submission.  Since the simple overflow
>>> condition is easily solved with my fix, and the code has been
>>> otherwise stable I'd like to suggest that we keep the fix as-is.  The
>>> loop timing as it stands now is not the source of the bug, other than
>>> that latch can overflow and that is solved in one line.  If we want
>>> to revisit this and improve the overall performance (though I haven't
>>> seen evidence that there is a perf issue with this at all) then maybe
>>> an RFE is in order.  What do you think?
>>>
>>> --Jamil
>