[15] RFR JDK-8242151 Improve OID mapping and reuse among JDK security providers for aliases registration

Wed Apr 29 22:59:52 UTC 2020

Hi Max,

Here is the updated webrev 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8242151/webrev.01/

which should address your earlier comments (see below)

- OidString renamed to KnownOIDs and updated the aliasing handling code 
in both KnownOIDs and SecurityProviderConstants classes

- Removed additional oid constants in AlgorithmId class which are only 
referenced by regression tests, so webrev.01 adds two more regression 
tests accordingly

- Moved the computeOidTable() and its relevant code to AlgorithmId class

- Use extra standard name arg for ExtendedKeyUsage enums.

> Inside getAliases(), why must there be an exception when there is no OidString.findMatch(o)? Does every algorithm name need an OID? I thought of X.509 but you have added it into aliases.

Hmm, the exception is meant to catch scenarios where the specified name 
has a typo and to signal the caller that expected aliases is not found. 
I updated the code in webrev.01 to make it clearer.

Valerie

On 4/27/2020 6:37 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 2020, at 8:08 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.peng at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it can be quite a confusing scenario. Some algorithms have multiple oids (say X) and multiple algorithm names (say Y). We need to be able to handle all of them (X+Y). However, the separation of alias definition for OidString and SecurityProviderConstants are intentional and I have them separated with the reason below:
>>
>> The aliases in OidString can be viewed as internal, e.g. from JCA classes and used by AlgorithmId class and its regression tests. All of the supported oids (X of them) have to have an OidString enum type as their usage may be present in the DER encoding and all internal classes need to handle it. As for the multiple algorithm names, supposedly, there is only one standard name and the rest are all aliases. Aliases can be used to request the impl from provider, but that's all. Internal classes do not need to understand these external/provider-related aliases. By separating these external aliases inside SecurityProviderConstants, it is clear that these aliases are for providers only.
> I understand.
>
> In SecurityProviderConstants::getAliases, is it possible to combine aliases.get(o) and OidString.findMatch(o)? Or we can rewrite store() and grab info from OidString so that there is no need to always add OID.oid and oid in the store() calls.
>
> Inside getAliases(), why must there be an exception when there is no OidString.findMatch(o)? Does every algorithm name need an OID? I thought of X.509 but you have added it into aliases.
>
>> StdName itself should not be its aliases. Which line in SecurityProviderConstants class has this problem?
> Sorry, I got it wrong. I've mistakenly thought that OidString.DSA.value() is the name.
>
> Thanks,
> Max
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Valerie
>>
>> On 4/25/2020 7:46 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>> And I am confused by aliases in SecurityProviderConstants, together with the duplicated stdName in OidString, it seems to show that one OID could have multiple names, and one name could have multiple OIDs. Can we consolidate aliases inside OidString also?
>>>
>>> Also, looking at the store() calls in SecurityProviderConstants, it looks like a stdName itself is one of its aliases. Is this really useful? From what I read in the provider classes, you are adding ServiceKeys based on these aliases to a serviceMap which already has a ServiceKey based on stdName.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Max
>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2020, at 6:28 PM, Weijun Wang <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OidString.java
>>>> ==============
>>>>
>>>> 1. ExtendedKeyUsage names: used to be "serverAuth", now "ServerAuth". First letter capitalized, is this necessary?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Can we move name2oidStr() from OidString to AlgorithmId? The computeOidTable process looks like an alien.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Two questions on the following lines:
>>>>
>>>> 415         // set extra alias mappings or specify the preferred one when
>>>> 416         // one standard name maps to multiple enums
>>>> 417         // NOTE: key must use UPPER CASE
>>>> 418         name2enum.put("SHA1", SHA_1);
>>>> 419         name2enum.put("SHA", SHA_1);
>>>> 420         name2enum.put("SHA224", SHA_224);
>>>> 421         name2enum.put("SHA256", SHA_256);
>>>> 422         name2enum.put("SHA384", SHA_384);
>>>> 423         name2enum.put("SHA512", SHA_512);
>>>> 424         name2enum.put("SHA512/224", SHA_512$224);
>>>> 425         name2enum.put("SHA512/256", SHA_512$256);
>>>> 426         name2enum.put("DH", DiffieHellman);
>>>> 427         name2enum.put("DSS", SHA1withDSA);
>>>> 428         name2enum.put("RSA", RSA);
>>>>
>>>>    a) For line 428, is this because both RSA and ITUX509_RSA have the same stdName and you are setting the preferred one? However, I can see that "DiffieHellman", "DSA", and "SHA1withDSA" also appear in multiple places. Do they need special attention?
>>>>
>>>>    b) For the other lines, can we make this info somewhere inside the constructor? After all our goal is to consolidate all info in one single place, and a single line is better than a single file, esp, a very big file.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Are you sure the OID <-> name mapping is always the same everywhere (for all primitives and in all providers)? I mean for a stdName, if one OID alias is added in one place, should it always be added the same way in another? Have you compared the aliases map after this change?
>>>>
>>>> 5. I found KnownOIDs to be a better class name.
>>>>
>>>> AlgorithmId.java
>>>> ================
>>>>
>>>> There are still many lines like
>>>>
>>>>     public static final ObjectIdentifier MD2_oid = algOID(OidString.MD2);
>>>>
>>>> here. Can they be eliminated? I use IntelliJ IDEA to find their usages and most are used in only one place and some are not used at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't read other files yet. Will send more comment later.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 24, 2020, at 7:11 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.peng at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you have time to review this change? The current webrev attempts to cover all security classes where hard-coded oid strings and consolidate these known oid string values into a single enum type. The changes are quite extensive, I can trim back and only cover the provider algorithm oids if you prefer. There are pros and cons for both approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that the naming convention is to use all upper case for enum constants, but choose to use the same naming convention as standard names to simplify the code. SecurityProviderConstants class defines the common mappings which are general to providers. Provider-specific alias mappings are handled in specific provider class, e.g. SunJSSE class.
>>>>>
>>>>> RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242151
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8242151/webrev.00/
>>>>>
>>>>> Mach5 runs clean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Valerie
>>>>>