Re: [openssl-project] to fully overlap or not to

On 02/28/18 17:25, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > >> On Feb 28, 2018, at 5:39 AM, Andy Polyakov wrote: >> >> I'd like to request more opinions on >> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is >> whether or not following fragment should work >> >> unsigned char *inp = b

Re: [openssl-project] to fully overlap or not to

In message <39cb0562-d313-c2d7-8d84-58badaaaf...@openssl.org> on Wed, 28 Feb 2018 18:09:38 +0100, Andy Polyakov 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 shou

Re: [openssl-project] to fully overlap or not to

On 28/02/18 17:09, Andy Polyakov wrote: I'd like to request more opinions on https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is whether or not following fragment should work unsigned char *inp = buf, *out = buf; for (i = 0; i < sizeof(buf)

Re: [openssl-project] to fully overlap or not to

>>> I'd like to request more opinions on >>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is >>> whether or not following fragment should work >>> >>> unsigned char *inp = buf, *out = buf; >>> >>> for (i = 0; i < sizeof(buf); i++) { >>> EVP_EncryptUpdate(ctx, out, &o

Re: [openssl-project] to fully overlap or not to

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Viktor Dukhovni > wrote: > >>> I'd like to request more opinions on >>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is >>> whether or not following fragment should work >>> >>> unsigned char *inp = buf, *out = buf; >>> >>> for (i = 0;

Re: [openssl-project] to fully overlap or not to

On 28/02/18 16:32, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > >> On Feb 28, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Viktor Dukhovni >> wrote: >> >>> I'd like to request more opinions on >>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is >>> whether or not following fragment should work >>> >>> unsigned c

Re: [openssl-project] to fully overlap or not to

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Viktor Dukhovni > wrote: > >> I'd like to request more opinions on >> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is >> whether or not following fragment should work >> >> unsigned char *inp = buf, *out = buf; >> >> for (i = 0; i < s

Re: [openssl-project] to fully overlap or not to

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 5:39 AM, Andy Polyakov wrote: > > I'd like to request more opinions on > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is > whether or not following fragment should work > >unsigned char *inp = buf, *out = buf; > >for (i = 0; i < sizeof(buf);

[openssl-project] Coding style updates

Please look at https://github.com/openssl/web/pull/43 I want to have an OMC vote on this soon, like within a week. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project

[openssl-project] Travel reimbursement policy

By a vote of 6-0-2 the OMC adopted the following travel reimbursement policy. On a related matter, the OMC voted to hold a face-to-face meeting May 5-6 in Ottawa, just before the ICMC conference. The travel policy will now be subject to ruthless html’ization and posted to the website. The Op

Re: [openssl-project] to fully overlap or not to

> Collateral question also is whether or not it would > be appropriate to make this kind of change in minor release. One can wonder if this is actually more burning question. But keep in mind that ... > ... there is no > contradiction, as fixing the bug doesn't have to mean that specific > corner

[openssl-project] to fully overlap or not to

Hi, I'd like to request more opinions on https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is whether or not following fragment should work unsigned char *inp = buf, *out = buf; for (i = 0; i < sizeof(buf); i++) { EVP_EncryptUpdate(ctx, out, &outl, inp++, 1);