Em sáb., 13 de fev. de 2021 às 20:32, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> escreveu:
> 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
