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@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 In which patch that symbol is removed? /Jarkko
