[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1a623251-e83a-3b70-9fbd-8e929a23f7d8@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 11:30:26 -0500
From: Ken Goldman <kgold@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net,
zohar@...ux.ibm.com, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
serge@...lyn.com, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: sm3 - add a new alias name sm3-256
On 2/9/2020 10:17 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> According to https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-oscca-cfrg-sm3-01.html,
> SM3 always produces a 256-bit hash value. E.g., it says:
>
> "SM3 produces an output hash value of 256 bits long"
>
> and
>
> "SM3 is a hash function that generates a 256-bit hash value."
>
> I don't see any mention of "SM3-256".
>
> So why not just keep it as "sm3" and change hash_info.c instead?
> Since the name there is currently wrong, no one can be using it yet.
Question: Is 256 bits fundamental to SM3? Could there ever be a
variant in the future that's e.g., 512 bits?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists