[8u] RFR 8202343: Disable TLS 1.0 and 1.1
mbalao at redhat.com
Fri Jan 22 15:40:57 UTC 2021
Thanks for having a look at this.
On 1/21/21 3:31 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>> * 8u does not have JDK-8234728 which introduces this test file. This
>> case is similar to the JdkProcClient.java one, so I propose the same
>> action now.
> I tend to disagree. JDK-8234728 seems like a good patch to have for
> OpenJDK 8u. It verifies proper ciphers are available for certain
> algorithms. With the TLS 1.3 backport in 8u, it would be good to have
> associated tests too. Oracle backported it to 8 as well. I'd suggest to
> first backport JDK-8234728 and rebase this one on top.
Even when it would be desirable to have JDK-8234728 in 8u, I see it
analogous to JDK-8243029 and tend to disagree on the
dependencies-enforcement criteria. It's not a fundamental dependency:
they conflict accidentally because 8202343 is touching many test files
with the only goal of re-enabling TLS 1.0/1.1 for them to keep passing.
It's perhaps more clear if we think that 8202343 would have been
developed before 8234728 without any issues; and the fact that 8234728
was before is just a coincidence.
Even when JDK-8234728 applies cleanly, it fails to pass and it's far
from a trivial backport. In fact, my current investigation is suggesting
that JDK-8234728 is failing to properly execute
HandshakeHashCloneExhaustion with TLS 1.3; and is making it to
trivially-pass. TLS 1.3 uses the HKDF class to derive keys, which gets a
MessageDigest instance. However, because of JDK-8157579, there is a
fallback scheme for non-clonable MessageDigest implementations. As a
result, the MessageDigest instance used is not DigestBase$<SMTH> (from
the test BaseDigest.java file) but one from the SUN provider. Looks to
me that this is different than in TLS 1.2 or below, where the
TlsPrfGenerator class is used to derive keys and we have no
fallback-scheme for non-clonable MessageDigests. I've still not verified
this last statement, though. Verifying this last statement would confirm
HandshakeHashCloneExhaustion author's intention of using
DigestBase$<SMTH> instead of any other MessageDigest implementation.
Note: 8u does not have the JDK-8157579 fallback-scheme and is exposing
My point is that we now need to shift focus to investigate 8234728 in
jdk/jdk, fix it (eventually), create backports for it, backport 8157579
perhaps, and then continue with the backport of 8234728 -which has a
followup for another test, and I'm not sure it does not cause conflicts
or leads to a whole new chain of dependencies-.
I agree in that would be ideal to have all these tests and fixes, or
even to backport dependencies when they are non-fundamental but trivial.
But my concern is that a low-priority test may now be blocking an
More information about the jdk8u-dev