Backport to branch(3.10) : Fix NullPointerException when a client is misconfigured with digital signature #316
Conversation
…l signature for HMAC (#302)
Summary of ChangesHello @feeblefakie, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request backports a critical fix to address a Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request backports a fix for a NullPointerException that occurs when a client is misconfigured for digital signatures. The core of the change is to introduce a specific MissingSecretException which is now thrown when a secret is not found, instead of returning null. This makes the error handling more robust and prevents null pointer dereferences. The changes are well-supported by updates to unit tests and a new integration test that validates the fix for the misconfiguration scenario. Overall, this is a solid improvement to the system's error handling and stability.
| public void register(SecretEntry entry) { | ||
| SecretEntry existing = registry.lookup(entry.getKey()); | ||
| if (existing != null) { | ||
| try { | ||
| registry.lookup(entry.getKey()); | ||
| throw new DatabaseException(CommonError.SECRET_ALREADY_REGISTERED); | ||
| } catch (MissingSecretException e) { | ||
| registry.bind(entry); | ||
| } | ||
| registry.bind(entry); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While this change correctly adapts to the new behavior of registry.lookup (throwing MissingSecretException instead of returning null), the implementation uses exceptions for control flow. This is generally considered an anti-pattern as it can make the code harder to read and can have performance implications.
A more robust and clearer approach would be to implement an atomic registerIfNotExists operation within the SecretRegistry. This could be achieved using a conditional Put operation in ScalarDB (e.g., with PutIfNotExists condition). This would also eliminate a potential race condition between checking for existence and binding the new entry.
As this pattern existed before, this is a suggestion for future improvement rather than a required change for this PR.
2 participants
This is an automated backport of the following:
Please merge this PR after all checks have passed.