mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel L├ęcharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Dubious code in SslHelper...
Date Mon, 20 May 2013 09:14:44 GMT
Hi guys,

in SslHelper, we do have some code that unwrap the incoming data :

    private void processUnwrap(AbstractIoSession session, ByteBuffer
inBuffer) throws SSLException {
        // Blind guess : once uncompressed, the resulting buffer will be
3 times bigger
        ByteBuffer appBuffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(inBuffer.limit() * 3);
        SSLEngineResult result = unwrap(inBuffer, appBuffer);
<<------------------------ Here

        switch (result.getStatus()) {
        case OK:
            // Ok, go through the chain now
            appBuffer.flip();
            session.processMessageReceived(appBuffer);

and the called method unwrap does some strange thing :

    private SSLEngineResult unwrap(ByteBuffer inBuffer, ByteBuffer
appBuffer) throws SSLException {
        // First work with either the new incoming buffer, or the
accumulating buffer
        ByteBuffer tempBuffer = inBuffer;

        // Loop until we have processed the entire incoming buffer,
        // or until we have to stop
        while (true) {
            // Do the unwrapping
            SSLEngineResult result = sslEngine.unwrap(tempBuffer,
appBuffer);

            switch (result.getStatus()) {
            ...

            case BUFFER_OVERFLOW:
                // We have to increase the appBuffer size. In any case
                // we aren't processing an handshake here. Read again.
                appBuffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(appBuffer.capacity() +
4096);   <<--------------- ???
            }
        }
    }

I don't see how possibly the appBuffer can be used after having been
extended. In fact, I do think that the appBuffer is already big enough
(we allocate 3 times the needed size), but it's also a mistake to do so
: we should get back the result of the unwrap method and increase the
buffer size accordingly instead.

Thoughts ?

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny
www.iktek.com 


Mime
View raw message