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

> Once again: > - This PR *recognizes* the fact that special cases do in fact *exist*. ??? Is there application that heavily relies on some specific overlap percentage? > - The EVP layer has to be more aware of special cases anyhow. Where does it come from? Why does it *have to* be more aware of

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

On 03/29/18 16:07, Andy Polyakov wrote: > On 03/09/18 17:13, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> >> No. The intention is to make the partially overlapping check follow >> the underlying cipher's implementation needs, not the other way round. > > I don't follow. What does "underlying cipher's implementation

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

On 03/09/18 17:13, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 03/08/18 12:06, Andy Polyakov wrote: >> >>> Andy pointed out that my last e-mail was probably not clear enough. >>> >>> I want to drop the current partially overlapping checks >>> on the WRAP mode ciphers (which were ineffective anyways). >>> >>> And al

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

On 03/08/18 12:06, Andy Polyakov wrote: > >> Andy pointed out that my last e-mail was probably not clear enough. >> >> I want to drop the current partially overlapping checks >> on the WRAP mode ciphers (which were ineffective anyways). >> >> And allow the following additional use case for any cip

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

> Andy pointed out that my last e-mail was probably not clear enough. > > I want to drop the current partially overlapping checks > on the WRAP mode ciphers (which were ineffective anyways). > > And allow the following additional use case for any cipher > > unsigned char *in = buf + sizeof(buf)

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

Hi, Andy pointed out that my last e-mail was probably not clear enough. I want to drop the current partially overlapping checks on the WRAP mode ciphers (which were ineffective anyways). And allow the following additional use case for any cipher unsigned char *in = buf + sizeof(buf) - X, *out =

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

On 03/01/18 10:59, 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(

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

> Related > thing to recognize in the context is that *disputable* condition, the > one that triggered this discussion, is exercised only when > ctx->block_size is larger than 1, because then ctx->buf_len remains 0. I naturally meant "because *otherwise* ctx->buf_len remains 0". In other words ctx

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, o

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);

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