[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260120233617.GA10653@quark>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:36:17 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
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,
Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 07/12] crypto: Add RSASSA-PSS support
On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:15:57PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > As I mentioned in another reply, error-prone string parsing isn't a
> > great choice. C has native support for function parameters.
>
> But is constrained that it has to work with KEYCTL_PKEY_VERIFY's info
> parameter.
The cover letter of this patchset summarizes it as "These patches add
ML-DSA module signing and RSASSA-PSS module signing." Adding
KEYCTL_PKEY_VERIFY support for these algorithms would be a significant
new UAPI feature that would need its own justification and its own
documentation and test updates.
However, it was established pretty clearly in past discussions that
KEYCTL_PKEY_* are a mistake and basically exist only for backwards
compatibility with iwd.
So I don't understand why you're advocating for adding new features to
them.
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists