linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: sm3 - add a new alias name sm3-256

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:42 -0500
From:   Ken Goldman <kgold@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc:     "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: sm3 - add a new alias name sm3-256

On 2/10/2020 12:01 PM, Van Leeuwen, Pascal wrote:
> Well, the current specification surely doesn't define anything else and is
> already over a decade old. So what would be the odds that they add a
> different blocksize variant_now_  AND still call that SM3-something?

I just got a note from a cryptographer who said there were discussions 
last year about a future SM3 with 512 bit output.

Given that, why not plan ahead and use sm3-256?  Is there any downside?
Is the cost any more than 4 bytes in some source code?