OpenJDK11u: Backward incompatible behavior

[Kumar Srinivasan]

Hi Alexey - I was trying to understand the fix for the "Unexpected number of plaintext bytes” issue.

But it appears that the earlier iterations of the webrevs have disappeared, only webrev.5 is available in [1]
In  the future it would be a good practice, to retain all the webrevs for sometime.

Thanks

Kumar

[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcherepanov/8239788/


On Mar 11, 2020, at 8:53 AM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com<mailto:xuelei.fan at oracle.com>> wrote:

Hi Alexey,

I had run the testing for you, no surprise.  Please commit to JDK 15, and backport accordingly.

Thanks,
Xuelei

On 3/11/2020 7:16 AM, Alexey Bakhtin wrote:
Hello Xuelei,
Thank you for review.
Can I commit it to JDK15 and create backports to JDK 14, 13 and 11 ?
Thank you
Alexey
On 10 Mar 2020, at 20:59, Xuelei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com<mailto:xuelei.fan at oracle.com>> wrote:

Looks fine to me.

Thanks,
Xuelei

On 3/5/2020 8:50 AM, Alexey Bakhtin wrote:
Hello Xuelei,
I have renamed inputBuffer to recordBody.
Also, as you suggested, recordBody is not removed but used for multiple records. So, it should be better for performance.
JDK15 webrev: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fcr.openjdk.java.net%2F~dcherepanov%2F8239788%2Fwebrev.v5%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckusrinivasan%40vmware.com%7C322b64d367df4ad239db08d7c5d4901e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637195389056395429&sdata=y2sJbDyL8DmumCrlY3tF35BVyfs1k7Ikmr2l3ypMXDg%3D&reserved=0
Regards
Alexey
On 4 Mar 2020, at 21:23, Xuelei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com<mailto:xuelei.fan at oracle.com>> wrote:

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fcr.openjdk.java.net%2F~bae%2F8239788%2Fwebrev.v4%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckusrinivasan%40vmware.com%7C322b64d367df4ad239db08d7c5d4901e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637195389056395429&sdata=dAjTwfyW8tbCErqNc2URUVJdou8Aun3m9G%2FQ56N9PwA%3D&reserved=0

SSLSocketInputRecord:
 54     // Cache for incomplete input record.
 55     private ByteBuffer inputBuffer = null;
This variable is used for record body, I may use a instinctive name, for example recordBody.

Otherwise, looks good to me.

I think, for performance, it may be possible to reuse this buffer for multiple records.  I'd appreciate if you want to make an improvement in this update as well.

Thanks,
Xuelei

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/security-dev/attachments/20200317/af85e5c6/attachment.htm>