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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200210183620.GA137710@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:36:21 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Ken Goldman <kgold@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     "Van Leeuwen, Pascal" <pvanleeuwen@...bus.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Ken Goldman <kgold@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        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

[Please fix your email client; you dropped all non-list recipients from Cc,
and I had to manually add them back...]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 01:02:42PM -0500, Ken Goldman wrote:
> 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?

If renaming sm3 to sm3-256 in the crypto API, no.  If adding sm3-256 alongside
sm3, then yes there is a cost to that because from the crypto API's perspective
they will be separate algorithms that each need to be registered, tested, etc.

- Eric