On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 14:53, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 01:14:52PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > In spite of that, I have a slight preference for this version, given > > that it makes it obvious that we bail on two separate conditions: > > - an error has occurred > > - no error has occurred but the resulting walk is empty > > > > Testing walk.nbytes only needlessly obfuscates the code, as we need to > > return 'err' in the end anyway. > > I disagree, this is how most skcipher walkers are structured, they > never explicitly test on err and only terminate the loop when > walk->nbytes hits zero, in which case err is returned as is. > > I don't see why this particular skcipher walker should deviate > from that paradigm. In fact it is exactly that deviation that > caused the bug in the first instance. > Fair enough.
