On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 05:37:32PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> IMO there is no necessity in back-patching.
You are missing the point here. What you are proposing here would not
be backpatched. However, reusing the same words as upthread, this has
a cost in terms of *future* maintenance. In short, any *future*
potential bug fix that would require to be backpatched in need of
using this function or touching its area would result in a conflict.
Ok. +1 for back-patching.
Any future maintenance, or use of that functions, need to consult the api.
scram_HMAC_init(scram_HMAC_ctx *ctx, const uint8 *key, int keylen);
scram_HMAC_update(scram_HMAC_ctx *ctx, const char *str, int slen);
scram_HMAC_final(uint8 *result, scram_HMAC_ctx *ctx);
See both "result" and "ctx" are pointers.
Someone can use like this:
scram_HMAC_init(&ctx, key, keylen);
scram_HMAC_update(&ctx, str, slen);
scram_HMAC_final(&ctx, result); // parameters wrong order
And many compilers won't complain.
regards,
Ranier Vilela
