[CAUTION] RFR [XS]: 8237869: exclude jtreg test security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/LuxTrustCA.java because of instabilities - was : RE: jtreg test security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/LuxTrus

[Langer, Christoph]

Hi Matthias,

the entry in ProblemList.txt can't refer to 8237869, which is the bug that you're using to submit the exclusion. It must refer to the item that shall resolve the underlying issue which probably is Oracle's private bug that Sean referred to.

@Sean: In the interest of backportability, I'd ask you to either open up the internal bug and supply its id. If that isn't possible, could you please create a new public item and have your internal bug refer to it?

Thanks
Christoph


> -----Original Message-----
> From: security-dev <security-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of
> Baesken, Matthias
> Sent: Montag, 27. Januar 2020 10:25
> To: Sean Mullan <sean.mullan at oracle.com>; security-
> dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: [CAUTION] RFR [XS]: 8237869: exclude jtreg test
> security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/LuxTrustCA.
> java because of instabilities - was : RE: jtreg test
> security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/LuxTrust...
> 
> Hello, please review the exclusion of  jtreg test
> security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/LuxTrustCA.
> java  .
> 
> Bug/webrev :
> 
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8237869
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8237869.0/
> 
> Thanks, Matthias
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sean Mullan <sean.mullan at oracle.com>
> > Sent: Freitag, 24. Januar 2020 21:11
> > To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baesken at sap.com>; security-
> > dev at openjdk.java.net
> > Subject: Re: jtreg test
> >
> security/infra/java/security/cert/CertPathValidator/certification/LuxTrustCA.
> > java instabilities
> >
> > On 1/24/20 3:40 AM, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
> > > Hi Sean, thanks for looking into it .
> > >
> > >>However, there is no nextUpdate field set, which means there should
> be
> > always newer information available. So while the 5 minute delay may not
> be
> > a huge issue, the fact that they are returning cached responses,
> > >
> > >>looks like a problem to me.This could be the underlying problem, in that
> > they are not generating fresh OCSPResponses. I will contact LuxTrust and
> see
> > if we can get some information from them.
> > >
> > > Can we exclude  the test  until  the issue is resolved ?
> >
> > Ok, that is fine with me.
> >