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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > 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
