[python] Pass bytes to cryptography.io's RSAPrivateKey.sign()

[woju]

Description of the changes

See commit message.

Fixes: #1731

How to test this PR?

Check the reproducer in #1731.
Cc: @andre-w-fischer

---

This change is 

[dimakuv]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, all discussions resolved, not enough approvals from maintainers (1 more required)

---

-- commits line 10 at r1:
FYI: You can see this commit here: pyca/cryptography@0000b40

[kailun-qin]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion, not enough approvals from maintainers (1 more required) (waiting on @woju)

---

-- commits line 5 at r1:
-> Technically

Code quote:

Techically

[kailun-qin]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @woju)

[dimakuv]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @kailun-qin)

---

-- commits line 5 at r1:

Previously, kailun-qin (Kailun Qin) wrote…

-> Technically

Done

---

-- commits line 10 at r1:

Previously, dimakuv (Dmitrii Kuvaiskii) wrote…

FYI: You can see this commit here: pyca/cryptography@0000b40

FYI: I expanded this sentence a bit to make it clearer what commit is meant here.

[kailun-qin]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[woju]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion

a discussion (no related file):
Upstream accepted bug and fixed this:

• Unconfirmed regression: RSAPrivateKey.sign(data=) stopped accepting bytearray after 42.0 pyca/cryptography#10256
• explicitly support bytes-like for signature/data in RSA sign/verify pyca/cryptography#10259
• pyca/cryptography@08b24d8

Now I'm not sure if we want to merge this on our side. I'd argue we can, because .to_bytes() should return bytes, but right now there is no technical reason to merge. At least we can reword the commit message.

---

[dimakuv]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @woju)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, woju (Wojtek Porczyk) wrote…

Upstream accepted bug and fixed this:

• Unconfirmed regression: RSAPrivateKey.sign(data=) stopped accepting bytearray after 42.0 pyca/cryptography#10256
• explicitly support bytes-like for signature/data in RSA sign/verify pyca/cryptography#10259
• pyca/cryptography@08b24d8

Now I'm not sure if we want to merge this on our side. I'd argue we can, because .to_bytes() should return bytes, but right now there is no technical reason to merge. At least we can reword the commit message.

Let me change the commit message slightly. Our fix makes sense to me, and it's better to be on the safe side (what if someone has 42.0.0 - 42.0.1 on their platform).

---

[dimakuv]

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion, not enough approvals from maintainers (1 more required) (waiting on @woju)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, dimakuv (Dmitrii Kuvaiskii) wrote…

Let me change the commit message slightly. Our fix makes sense to me, and it's better to be on the safe side (what if someone has 42.0.0 - 42.0.1 on their platform).

@woju I changed the commit message. Can you check if this reads well to you?

---

[woju]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion, not enough approvals from maintainers (1 more required) (waiting on @dimakuv)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, dimakuv (Dmitrii Kuvaiskii) wrote…

@woju I changed the commit message. Can you check if this reads well to you?

I meant, the main thing that we're fixing is, to_bytes() does not return bytes, but bytearray, which is confusing. After next week no one will ever see the affected versions. But whatever, this is also OK, I'm +1-ing.

---

[mkow]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @dimakuv)

a discussion (no related file):

to_bytes() does not return bytes, but bytearray, which is confusing

I'm in favor of merging this PR just because of this - the current code is just confusing, so why not fix it up.

---

[dimakuv]

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved