Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81538
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rdlowrey@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAEKnhAE93rGQmN=jo-uWe4eRq2J8NZM8P=zjHeiKcMn+-KvxDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH8MpnktGy27BGFyH9i+tdfuMbti8KzHEXp=KD5LWy0vnKtxMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEKnhAE93rGQmN=jo-uWe4eRq2J8NZM8P=zjHeiKcMn+-KvxDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 13:23:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH8Mpn=CSQvo_-BKovo9dZZNfpULd6XOX3o6Cm4kWuE-VWCP1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net>
Cc: Daniel Lowrey <rdlowrey@php.net>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122a2089e3f3a050e0aef01
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: OpenSSL ext. improvements for authenticated cipher modes.
From: rdlowrey@php.net (Daniel Lowrey)

--089e0122a2089e3f3a050e0aef01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Daniel Lowrey <rdlowrey@php.net> wrote:
>>
>>   - openssl_decrypt() now returns mixed ... if $options['get_tag'] == true
>> then return [$decryptedString, $tag], otherwise return $decrypted string
>> as
>> before to preserve BC.
>>   - the encrypt function could use $options['set_tag'] to define that (or
>> any other secondary information needed for the operation).
>>
>
> I think that you confused it a bit :). The encryption results in cipher
> text and a tag. The decryption then validates the tag so you pass the tag
> as a parameter.
>

Okay, you see what I'm getting at :)


> Except that it's almost the same what I thought. I'm just not sure that
> mixed return value is a good idea. It seems a bit better having tag as a
> reference to me. But it's just a small detail that could be added to the
> RFC as a choice :)
>

My personal preference is to minimize the API and not add a sixth (!)
parameter (by-ref at that) to the method signature. I see a mixed return
with a simplified API as the lesser of the two evils, but like you say
that's just bikeshedding and can be part of a brief RFC on the subject.

--089e0122a2089e3f3a050e0aef01--