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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
