linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] crypto: fix mismatched hash algorithm name sm3-256 to sm3

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, 17 Feb 2020 20:33:18 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net,
        jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com, ebiggers@...nel.org,
        dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com
Cc:     linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] crypto: fix mismatched hash algorithm name
 sm3-256 to sm3

On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 17:36 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> The name sm3-256 is defined in hash_algo_name in hash_info, but the
> algorithm name implemented in sm3_generic.c is sm3, which will cause
> the sm3-256 algorithm to be not found in some application scenarios of
> the hash algorithm, and an ENOENT error will occur. For example,
> IMA, keys, and other subsystems that reference hash_algo_name all use
> the hash algorithm of sm3.
> 
> According to https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-oscca-cfrg-sm3-01.html,
> SM3 always produces a 256-bit hash value and there are no plans for
> other length development, so there is no ambiguity in the name of sm3.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>

The previous version of this patch set is queued in the next-
integrity-testing branch.  That version of this patch didn't
change TPM_ALG_SM3_256.  Unless the TPM standard was modified, the TPM
spec refers to it as TPM_ALG_SM3_256.  Has that changed?

Mimi