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@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
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
