In message <> on Wed, 28 Feb 
2018 18:09:38 +0100, Andy Polyakov <> said:

appro> >>> I'd like to request more opinions on
appro> >>> 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> 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
OpenSSL Project
openssl-project mailing list

Reply via email to