[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5db32f21-1df7-c92e-42a1-a2a85b29dfbf@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:46:11 +0800
From: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
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 2/2] tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256
Hi Jarkko,
On 10/12/21 11:21 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>
> This is not enough to make any changes because the commit message
> does not describe what goes wrong if we keep it as it was.
>
> /Jarkko
>
This did not cause an error, just to use a more standard algorithm name.
If it is possible to use the SM3 name instead of SM3_256 if it can be
specified from the source, it is of course better. I have contacted the
trustedcomputinggroup and have not yet received a reply.
Best regards,
Tianjia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists