asn1: Add support for IMPLICIT and EXPLICIT
#13735
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Facundo Tuesca <facundo.tuesca@trailofbits.com>
facutuesca
force-pushed
the
ft/asn1-implicit-explicit
branch
from
54a0c20 to
0a47aaa
Compare
Signed-off-by: Facundo Tuesca <facundo.tuesca@trailofbits.com>
facutuesca
force-pushed
the
ft/asn1-implicit-explicit
branch
from
30fc662 to
4b76630
Compare
alex
reviewed
Oct 25, 2025
src/cryptography/hazmat/asn1/asn1.py
Outdated
Comment on lines
63
to
70
| encoding = None | ||
| for raw_annotation in metadata: | ||
| if isinstance(raw_annotation, Default): | ||
| default = raw_annotation.value | ||
| elif isinstance(raw_annotation, Explicit): | ||
| encoding = declarative_asn1.Encoding.Explicit(raw_annotation.tag) | ||
| elif isinstance(raw_annotation, Implicit): | ||
| encoding = declarative_asn1.Encoding.Implicit(raw_annotation.tag) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You need to prohibit duplicates (I guess this is true of defaults as well!)
src/cryptography/hazmat/asn1/asn1.py
Outdated
| value: U | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| @dataclasses.dataclass(frozen=True) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need these, or could we expose Encoding.Explicit and Encoding.Implicit as these types?
Comment on lines
158
to
159
| // Since for optional types the annotations are enforced to be associated with the Option | ||
| // (instead of the inner type), when decoding the inner type we add the annotations of the Option |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I modified the comment to try to make it clearer:
// For optional types, annotations will always be associated to the `Optional` type
// i.e: `Annotated[Optional[T], annotation]`, as opposed to the inner `T` type.
// Therefore, when decoding the inner type `T` we must pass the annotation of the `Optional`
Member
|
@facutuesca Just a friendly ping since we're probably only a few weeks away from 47.0.0. If we need to slip to 48 that's fine of course. |
Signed-off-by: Facundo Tuesca <facundo.tuesca@trailofbits.com>
Signed-off-by: Facundo Tuesca <facundo.tuesca@trailofbits.com>
Signed-off-by: Facundo Tuesca <facundo.tuesca@trailofbits.com>
alex
approved these changes
Nov 19, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds support for
IMPLICITandEXPLICITfields to the ASN.1 API. The field types must be annotated withasn1.Implicit(tag=X)orasn1.Explicit(tag=Y):Part of #12283