In message <[email protected]> on Wed, 28 Feb 2018 18:09:38 +0100, Andy Polyakov <[email protected]> said:
appro> >>> I'd like to request more opinions on appro> >>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is appro> >>> whether or not following fragment should work appro> >>> appro> >>> unsigned char *inp = buf, *out = buf; appro> >>> appro> >>> for (i = 0; i < sizeof(buf); i++) { appro> >>> EVP_EncryptUpdate(ctx, out, &outl, inp++, 1); appro> >>> out += outl; appro> >>> } appro> >> appro> >> This should work. appro> > appro> > On second thought, perhaps not. appro> appro> It seems that double-clarification is appropriate. As it stands now it appro> *does* work. So question is rather if it should keep working [and if appro> not, is it appropriate that stops working in minor release]. I'll side with that it should continue to work... and most definitely should NOT stop working in a minor release. -- Richard Levitte [email protected] OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list [email protected] https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
