RFR 8163251 : Hard coded loop limit prevents reading of smart card data greater than 8k

[Valerie Peng]

Hi Ivan,

You removed the "=", so the actual iteration count is reduced by one.

Should the iteration count be 256 or 257? If the actual count should be 
257, then may be the check needs to be changed to k++ from ++k?

Valerie

On 2/10/2020 5:07 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
> Thank you Michael!
>
> It's a good point about maximum length.
>
> Here's the updated webrev with the new System property dropped and the 
> increased number of iterations:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8163251/01/webrev/
>
> With kind regards,
> Ivan
>
>
> On 2/10/20 4:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> On 2/10/2020 6:49 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> Current implementation of the method 
>>> javax.smartcardio.CardChannel.transmit() has an internal limitation 
>>> on the maximum allowed amount of the transmitted data.
>>>
>>> This limitation is dictated by the maximum number of iterations to 
>>> transmit data from a card:  Each iteration can transmit up to 256 
>>> bytes of data, and we have a hardcoded limit of 32 iterations.
>>>
>>> Over time, we've received requests to increase this limit, as there 
>>> are occasions when the effective limit of 8k is not enough.
>>>
>>> Would you please help review a proposal:  First, it is proposed to 
>>> increase the default limit of iteration to 128 (so that up to 32k of 
>>> data can be transmitted);  Second, the limit of iterations is made 
>>> configurable via a System property. This limit can be increased up 
>>> to 4096 (so that the total amount of transmitted data can be made up 
>>> to 1m).
>>>
>>> BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8163251
>>> WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8163251/00/webrev/
>>>
>>> If there is an agreement on the proposal, I'll file a CSR to 
>>> document a new System property.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>
>> Given that the maximum length for an extended APDU is 64K (65536) 
>> (hmm +7 for the header and +2 for LE), and for its return is 64K + 2 
>> bytes,  I'm not quite sure why you'd up the number to 4096/1M - I'd 
>> set the default and fixed value to 257 (64K) and leave it at that.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>