On Tue, 2020-02-18 at 10:34 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote: > On 2020/2/18 9:33, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > 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 > > The definition in the TPM specification is still TPM_ALG_SM3_256, please > ignore the modification to the TPM definition in this patch. Ok. Just confirming that I should ignore v2 of this patch set. Upstreaming the original version, as queued in next-integrity- testing, is fine. thanks, Mimi
