On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 09:56, Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > What is the point of these changes? Having '256' in the identifiers is merely redundant and not factually incorrect, so why can't we just leave these as they are? > --- > v3 changes: > - The fix of document trusted-encrypted.rst is put in patch 2 > > v2 changes: > - an additional macro with the same value is defined for uapi instead > of renaming directly > > Tianjia Zhang (2): > crypto: use SM3 instead of SM3_256 > tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256 > > Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst | 2 +- > crypto/hash_info.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c | 2 +- > include/crypto/hash_info.h | 2 +- > include/linux/tpm.h | 2 +- > include/uapi/linux/hash_info.h | 3 ++- > security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c | 2 +- > 8 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.19.1.3.ge56e4f7 >
