[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8ca00c48a987278a85435d6e046ce9a12bc9050b.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:48:24 +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 Mon, 2021-10-18 at 10:37 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
>
> On 10/15/21 11:19 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> This series of patch is a complete replacement. Patch 1 is a replacement
> of the crypto subsystem, and patch 2 is a replacement of the tpm driver.
>
> Best regards,
> Tianjia
In which patch that symbol is removed?
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists