RFR 8210476: sun/security/mscapi/PrngSlow.java fails with Still too slow
Weijun Wang
weijun.wang at oracle.com
Sun Dec 2 11:48:21 UTC 2018
Thanks for your support. Here is the updated webrev:
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8210476/webrev.02/
I've made ctxt transient and added a readObject method, and a new test for this.
The cleaner action is now implemented as a named inner class.
Thanks
Max
> On Dec 1, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Xue-Lei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Weijun,
>
> I think you made a significant improvement of the performance, with less timing and resources. I don't think my concerns are strong enough to prevent this fix from moving forward.
>
> I'm fine with your update. You can move forward as it is, or using finalize() instead.
>
> For my concerns, if you go with Cleaner, we can open a new RFE for the tracking if we have a good idea in the future.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
>
> On 11/30/2018 3:47 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Hi Xuelei, and Ivan who replied in another mail,
>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Xue-Lei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you know, is there any other way except Cleaner and finalize() to clean up the allocated resources?
>> I don't know any other automatic mechanisms. There is AutoClosable but SecureRandom has not implemented it and we cannot expect people using try-with-resources on it.
>>>
>>> I'm not very sure of the use of static Cleaner:
>>> 1. a daemon thread will run underlying.
>>> 2. the number of registered actions could be huge in some circumstances.
>> Anyway, I think any fix that reuses the context is to change a time performance issue into a resource performance issue because we cannot precisely control the resource cleanup.
>> I don't have enough data on how often people use Windows-PRNG, how many objects they create, how many nextBytes they call on a single object, and how they use it in multiple threads. So it's quite clueless to determine which solution is the best.
>> Both this bug and the previous one (JDK-6449335) are not reported by external customers. Therefore I prefer retargeting the bug to the next release and problem list the test at the moment. In the last 1700 mach5 jobs with this test, there were 4 timeouts.
>> Thanks
>> Max
>> p.s. We might reimplement using CNG but CNG also has its own problem (no easy way to implement setSeed).
>>>
>>> I'm not very sure if it could be a scalability bottleneck or not.
>>>
>>> Xuelei
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/26/2018 5:33 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>> Ping again
>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 5:33 PM, Weijun Wang <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev updated at
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8210476/webrev.01/
>>>>>
>>>>> The only change is that there is a single Cleaner now for the whole PRNG class. Otherwise, each will maintain its own thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Max
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 11, 2018, at 11:30 PM, Weijun Wang <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please take a review at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8210476/webrev.00/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before this fix, every PRNG::nextBytes calls all of CryptAcquireContext, CryptGenRandom, and CryptReleaseContext. Now, CryptAcquireContext is called once in PRNG::new, and CryptReleaseContext is called by a Cleaner, and nextBytes only calls CryptGenRandom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't read about thread-safety in any MS document, the current Windows-PRNG service is marked ThreadSafe=true (in SunMSCAPI.java). If we cannot be really sure, we can change it to false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've downloaded nearly 1000 Mach5 runs of this test, the enhancement is so good that I adjusted the test to be stricter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before After
>>>>>> ------ -----
>>>>>> Count 897 74
>>>>>> Min 0.38 0.008
>>>>>> Ave 0.97 0.011
>>>>>> Max 5.81 0.021
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please advise me if the following usage of Cleaner is correct because I really haven't observed the releaseContext method being called.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + Cleaner.create().register(this,
>>>>>> + () -> releaseContext(ctxt));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>
>>>>>
More information about the security-dev
mailing list