linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 08/10] pkcs7, x509: Add RSASSA-PSS support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1177988.1768922903@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:28:23 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
    Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
    Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
    Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
    Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
    Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...nel.org>,
    Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
    "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
    Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
    Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
    keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
    linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 08/10] pkcs7, x509: Add RSASSA-PSS support

Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com> wrote:

> > +       struct rsassa_parameters *rsassa __free(kfree) =
> 
> Did you mean to use the newly added rsassa_params_free() here?

Err, yes, I should have done.

> > +DEFINE_FREE(rsassa_params_free,  struct rsassa_parameters*, rsassa_params_free(_T))
> 
> So you use plain kfree() in one instance and this custom free definition in
> another.  We should probably pick one.

Yeah, both should have used the custom one.

> What is the idea behind this custom rsassa_params_free(), if it just calls
> into kfree()?

In case in future something freeable is added to it, it seems like a good idea
to have a destructor[*].  Other mask functions are theoretically possible, for
example.

[*] (Since we seem to be reinventing C++ ;-)

David