On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 10:35:37AM +0200, Omar Polo wrote:
> sorry for the noise, noticed just now re-reading the diff.
>
> On 2023/08/17 09:32:43 +0000, Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org> wrote:
> > --- bioctl.8 6 Jul 2023 21:08:50 -0000 1.111
> > +++ bioctl.8 17 Aug 2023 09:24:28 -0000
> > @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ is specified as "auto", the number of ro
> > based on system performance.
> > Otherwise the minimum is 4 rounds and the default is 16.
> > .It Fl s
> > -Read the passphrase for the selected crypto volume from
> > +Omit prompts and read passphrases without confirmation from
> > .Pa /dev/stdin
> > rather than
> > .Pa /dev/tty .
>
> "read passphrases" hints that it reads more than one, which is not
> what it would do now.
Since -s applies to -P, it does effect multiple passphrases in one usage,
i.e. you enter an old and a new one.
The plural also reads more generic, less specific to me.
>
> what about something like
>
> +Read the passphrase from standard input without prompting.
So which one does "the" refer to, old or new one?
I'll commit the manual text as-is now, since that it is already an
improvement; we can polish in-tree.
>
> I'm not sure how to fit "without confirmation" nicely and whether the
> singular "passphrase" is enough to convey what it does.
>
>
> also, to correct my previous mail
>
> On 2023/08/17 16:28:52 +0200, Omar Polo <o...@omarpolo.com> wrote:
> > On 2023/08/17 09:32:43 +0000, Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > @@ -1316,6 +1316,7 @@ derive_key(u_int32_t type, int rounds, u
> > > size_t pl;
> > > struct stat sb;
> > > char passphrase[1024], verifybuf[1024];
> > > + int rpp_flag = RPP_ECHO_OFF;
> >
> > since this is the default...
> >
> > > if (!key)
> > > errx(1, "Invalid key");
> > > @@ -1351,6 +1352,8 @@ derive_key(u_int32_t type, int rounds, u
> > >
> > > fclose(f);
> > > } else {
> > > + rpp_flag |= interactive ? RPP_REQUIRE_TTY : RPP_STDIN;
> > > +
> >
> > I'd find slightly easier to read
> >
> > + rpp_flag = interactive ? RPP_REQUIRE_TTY : RPP_STDIN
> >
> > but no strong opinion.
>
> obviously i meant for this line to be moved earlier in my suggestion.
Also works, but I think jsing has a point here, where XOR'ing the value
makes it clearer how rpp_flag works.
This also matches signify(1)'s code around readpassphrase(3).
>
> > > if (readpassphrase(prompt, passphrase, sizeof(passphrase),
> > > rpp_flag) == NULL)
> > > err(1, "unable to read passphrase");
>
