linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] tpm: use SM3 instead of 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]

Message-ID: <1749e7c3b528d361c09b40e5758b92c7386ffe1f.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Sat, 09 Oct 2021 08:29:52 -0500
From:   James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256

On Sat, 2021-10-09 at 21:08 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> 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.

For the TPM we're following the TPM Library specification

https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tpm-library-specification/

Which is very clear: the algorithm name is TPM_ALG_SM3_256

We're using sm3 as our exposed name because that's what linux crypto
uses, so there should be no problem in what the end user sees, but
changing to non standard TPM definitions is only going to cause
confusion at the kernel level.

James