8358159: Empty mode/padding in cipher transformations

[varada1110]

Hi all,

This pull request contains a backport of commit 3ff83ec4 from the openjdk/jdk repository.

The commit being backported was authored by Varada M on 10 Jun 2025 and was reviewed by Amit Kumar and Valerie Peng.

Thanks!

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• JDK-8358159 needs maintainer approval

Issue

• JDK-8358159: Empty mode/padding in cipher transformations (Bug - P4)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev.git pull/1867/head:pull/1867
$ git checkout pull/1867

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/1867
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev.git pull/1867/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 1867

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 1867

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21u-dev/pull/1867.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back varadam! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[openjdk]

⚠️ @varada1110 This change is now ready for you to apply for maintainer approval. This can be done directly in each associated issue or by using the /approval command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (2e894aee)

[varada1110]

/approval 8358159 request the backport fixes the cipher transformations with empty mode or padding which no longer default to expected values. JTREG testing successful.

[openjdk]

@varada1110
8358159: The approval request has been created successfully.

[GoeLin]

Hi @varada1110
please backport this to 25 (or 25u) first.
I think backports to 25 are automatically merged to 25u.

[kevinrushforth]

Hi @varada1110 please backport this to 25 (or 25u) first. I think backports to 25 are automatically merged to 25u.

Correct. So backport to one of 25 or 25u (whichever is appropriate for the bug in question), not both.

[kevinrushforth]

Hi @varada1110 please backport this to 25 (or 25u) first. I think backports to 25 are automatically merged to 25u.

Correct. So backport to one of 25 or 25u (whichever is appropriate for the bug in question), not both.

And to answer the question of which is appropriate, as a P4 bug it is not a candidate for JDK 25. Backport it to jdk25u.

[valeriepeng]

@varada1110 Please don't rush with the backports. We observed some test failures with this, so further changes may be needed. Let's wait a little till all tests are run and causes of the test failures are understood. Thanks~

[GoeLin]

OK, I'll remove the fix-request in the meantime. Feel free to label again if all issues are resolved. Thanks.