Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

More srtp factory improvements #26

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JonathanLennox
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@ibauersachs ibauersachs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Line 892/893 will probably trigger a reflection warning on Java 11+ and can be moved to the Java 8 code block.

/* Java 9+. PKCS11 configuration is set using the
* configure method.
* Use reflection so we can build with JDK 8. */
Method configureMethod =
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why not move this inside the null-check?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because I don't need/want to call Provider.getPrototype() if getMethod("configure") throws, as it will in Java 1.8.

{
logger.debug("Unable to construct PKCS11 provider: " + e.getMessage());
}
finally
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The entire finally block could just be the else-part of the provier-null check above and the inner try/catch made redundant.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure I follow? This is executed if getMethod("configure") throws, as it will in Java 1.8.

@JonathanLennox
Copy link
Member Author

Line 892/893 will probably trigger a reflection warning on Java 11+ and can be moved to the Java 8 code block.

This is a public method of a public class, which as I understand it won't trigger reflection warnings. (I don't see any warnings, myself, when I use Java 11 or 14.). Basically, if it works without needing to call setAccessible, it's fine.

The purpose of it is to let us use the Java 9+ API but still build with the Java 8 JDK, so it needs to be in the Java 9+ code block.

@ibauersachs
Copy link
Member

ibauersachs commented Sep 21, 2020

Sorry, the inline comments are confusing. Wouldn't this work?

        public static synchronized Provider getProvider()
            throws Exception
        {
            Provider provider = SunPKCS11CipherFactory.provider;
            if (provider == null && useProvider)
            {
                try
                {
                    Provider prototype = Security.getProvider("SunPKCS11");
                    if (prototype != null && !System.getProperty("java.version").startsWith("1.8"))
                    {
                        // Java 9+. PKCS11 configuration is set using the configure method.
                        // Use reflection so we can build with JDK 8.
                        Method configureMethod = Provider.class.getMethod("configure", String.class);
                        provider = (Provider)configureMethod.invoke(prototype, getConfiguration());
                    }
                    else
                    {
                        Class<?> clazz = Class.forName("sun.security.pkcs11.SunPKCS11");
                        if (Provider.class.isAssignableFrom(clazz))
                        {
                            // Java 8. PKCS11 configuration is passed as a constructor parameter.
                            Constructor<?> contructor = clazz.getConstructor(String.class);
                            provider = (Provider) contructor.newInstance(getConfiguration());
                        }
                }
                catch (Exception e)
                {
                    logger.debug("Unable to construct PKCS11 provider: " + e.getMessage());
                }
                finally
                {
                    if (provider == null)
                        useProvider = false;
                    else
                        SunPKCS11CipherFactory.provider = provider;
                }
            }
            return provider;
        }

@JonathanLennox
Copy link
Member Author

Sorry, the inline comments are confusing. Wouldn't this work?

No, I'm pretty sure Security.getProvider("SunPKCS11") can succeed on Java 8, if that provider happens to be configured in java.security, but getMethod("configure") will throw.

(This isn't the default setup, to be sure.)

@ibauersachs
Copy link
Member

Sorry, the inline comments are confusing. Wouldn't this work?

No, I'm pretty sure Security.getProvider("SunPKCS11") can succeed on Java 8, if that provider happens to be configured in java.security, but getMethod("configure") will throw.

(This isn't the default setup, to be sure.)

Okay, updated to include a version check.

@JonathanLennox
Copy link
Member Author

Okay, updated to include a version check.

I hate doing version checks if there's any way the code can directly determine whether a feature is available - what's your objection to the existing logic?

(I did a slight rearrangement to avoid getting the class object until it's needed.)

@ibauersachs
Copy link
Member

Okay, updated to include a version check.

I hate doing version checks if there's any way the code can directly determine whether a feature is available - what's your objection to the existing logic?

The nested try's are confusing to read. Using exceptions as an expected outcome is bad code style and using finally as an else block is abuse. But that's just my opinion and I agree that version checks aren't a good thing either. The multi-release jars are supposed to solve things like this, but they have their own drawbacks.

(I did a slight rearrangement to avoid getting the class object until it's needed.)

@JonathanLennox JonathanLennox force-pushed the more-srtp-factory-improvements branch from b81f28c to 4903647 Compare September 22, 2020 20:13
@JonathanLennox
Copy link
Member Author

Note I pulled out several parts of this PR into #28 ; what remains is less critical.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants