linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] 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: <31d49f7785dd82fd2f0c1078c9a94153e3c389ac.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 18:19:57 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        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

On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 17:46 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> 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

Why don't you then create a patch set that fully removes SM3_256, if it
is incorrect?

This looks a bit half-baked patch set.

/Jarkko