RFR: 8360564: Implement JEP 524: PEM Encodings of Cryptographic Objects (Second Preview) [v7]

[Anthony Scarpino]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 18:22:28 GMT, Sean Mullan <mullan at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Anthony Scarpino has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - fix non-pbe
>>  - doc updates, zeroing, fix unencrypted keypair encoding, exception mods
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/PEMDecoder.java line 298:
> 
>> 296:      * @param str a String containing PEM data
>> 297:      * @return a {@code DEREncodable}
>> 298:      * @throws IllegalArgumentException on error in decoding or no PEM data found
> 
> It looks like this method will throw `EOFException` and not `IllegalArgumentException` if there is no PEM data because it calls decode with a `ByteArrayInputStream` so uses that method which throws an `EOFException`.
> 
> Same comment for method that takes a `Class` argument.

EOFException is a child of IOException, so the catch covers this.

> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/PEMEncoder.java line 285:
> 
>> 283:      * @return a new {@code PEMEncoder} instance configured for encryption
>> 284:      * @throws NullPointerException when password is {@code null}
>> 285:      * @throws ProviderException if generating the encryption key fails.
> 
> This actually throws an `IllegalArgumentException` if the key derivation fails.

Yes, I wrote the javadoc based on a suggestion, then didn't update when the constructor was changed.

> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo.java line 1:
> 
>> 1: /*
> 
> Some inconsistency in parameter definitions that are the same across different methods. Please check and use consistent wording.

I cleaned up the inconsistencies I found in encrypt, getKey, and getKeyPair.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27147#discussion_r2453138454
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27147#discussion_r2453074907
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27147#discussion_r2453811060