[14] RFR JDK-8229243 "SunPKCS11-Solaris provider tests failing on Solaris 11.4"

[Valerie Peng]

During the pre-integration mach5 run, I ran into a window-specific data 
alignment problem when the custom GCM param structure is declared inside 
pkcs11wrapper.h in webrev.01. So, I ended up adding a separate header 
file pkcs11gcm2.h containing only this structure and include it in the 
platform-specific header p11_md.h so the current logic of using sizeof() 
works as expected.

Mach5 run and Solaris 11.4 run pass as expected with webrev.02.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8229243/webrev.02/

If there are more comments, please let me know in a few days.

Thanks!
Valerie
On 9/24/2019 9:45 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
> Great, thanks for the review and feedback~
>
> Valerie
>
> On 9/24/2019 9:20 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>> I looked at the latest webrev:
>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8229243/webrev.01/
>>
>> Which is good to me.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Xuelei
>>
>> On 9/19/2019 5:46 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not on the PKCS#11 committee and not sure about the plan.
>>> As for which one is right, I am more inclined to the "spec is right" 
>>> side which is also what NSS picked.
>>> Comparing between spec and header, shouldn't the former get more 
>>> eyeballs in terms of review?
>>> The header file also has a deprecated structure CK_AES_GCM_PARAMS 
>>> which contains both ulIvLen and ulIvBits fields.
>>> As ulIvBits and ulIvLen are essentially same in terms of meaning 
>>> except bytes vs bits. Having both just creates confusion and 
>>> potential inconsistency and makes not much sense to me.
>>>
>>> Valerie
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: xuelei.fan at oracle.com
>>> To: valerie.peng at oracle.com, security-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 7:47:43 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada 
>>> Pacific
>>> Subject: Re: [14] RFR JDK-8229243 "SunPKCS11-Solaris provider tests 
>>> failing on Solaris 11.4"
>>>
>>> Will the inconsistency structure be continue?  I was just wondering if
>>> OpenHSM2/Solaris/NSS will fix the bug and use one structure in the
>>> future, then we may not need to workaround the issue in the calling 
>>> side.
>>>
>>> I had a quick look the PKCS#11 3.0 draft, there is no update of the
>>> structure yet.
>>>
>>> Xuelei
>>>
>>> On 9/18/2019 6:01 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
>>>> Ping?
>>>>
>>>> Can someone help take a look?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Valerie
>>>>
>>>> On 8/15/2019 4:49 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone has time to help review this fix? PKCS#11 v2.40 has
>>>>> inconsistent definition for CK_GCM_PARAMS struct. The mechanism spec
>>>>> (sec 2..12.3) has:
>>>>>
>>>>>      typedef struct CK_GCM_PARAMS {
>>>>>          CK_BYTE_PTR       pIv;
>>>>>          CK_ULONG          ulIvLen;
>>>>>          CK_BYTE_PTR       pAAD;
>>>>>          CK_ULONG          ulAADLen;
>>>>>          CK_ULONG          ulTagBits;
>>>>>      } CK_GCM_PARAMS;
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the header file pkcs11t.h has an extra "ulIvBits" field:
>>>>>
>>>>>      typedef struct CK_GCM_PARAMS {
>>>>>          CK_BYTE_PTR       pIv;
>>>>>          CK_ULONG          ulIvLen;
>>>>>      *    CK_ULONG          ulIvBits;*
>>>>>          CK_BYTE_PTR       pAAD;
>>>>>          CK_ULONG          ulAADLen;
>>>>>          CK_ULONG          ulTagBits;
>>>>>      } CK_GCM_PARAMS;
>>>>>
>>>>> Some vendors such OpenHSM2 and Solaris go with the header file while
>>>>> some vendor such as NSS go with the mech spec. Current SunPKCS11
>>>>> provider impl works with NSS but not with other vendors whose
>>>>> CK_GCM_PARAMS struct contains ulIvBits field. Based on testing
>>>>> results, OpenHSM2 and Solaris error out at init time when the
>>>>> parameter length does not have their expected value. Thus, one way to
>>>>> workaround this inconsistency is to re-try with a different structure
>>>>> for AES GCM when the init failed. In addition, given the parameters
>>>>> contains Iv and AAD which some vendor may use during subsequent
>>>>> enc/dec operations, I changed to use the same model as RSASSA-PSS to
>>>>> defer the freeing after the enc/dec operation is finished. Verified
>>>>> the changes on Solaris 11.4 against existing GCM regression tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229243
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8229243/webrev.00/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Valerie