Received: by 2002:a25:1506:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp3984232ybv; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:03:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxTEj42A4k2XUqH0OwgCf21r6qFUEv4O8gHT8TWtPmpMWQ4So2TXFLUKxfG7SNcYtojsSfb X-Received: by 2002:aca:ed08:: with SMTP id l8mr188535oih.80.1581357787403; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:03:07 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1581357787; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=JB6j7KnlNnODVIouXYIj19gd4siHbCzO513z3MzvOnaeyBsok8tr4sLmLh9ScSj0j5 NCLuNrszlsQvcCZN1Klu0tes//2Ao99+RyyS3STZAOJp2a2n4MhWeeHCdwDkgN/0xVL+ KiTB7tINcldXvx8lG4RhIuUnMoB8OVnwuM0pesIqMHmfCjEDukec+gSvxlgptoH0P30K G4HMvl4e32iR8EnUOGTokMHQ6qJlTqTOfhcfrwyu4d7ffLuHagDE14C+/7K5UBynUCfx ZYtqjbKrrdiAhnPIEuKE4M1avJ0sNUmIs6W8T8V6/PvEiNffNjCs2QQw/ODZsUe2ImGS FIpg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:subject; bh=joVij53HwgAsn70HQCaJ7v7ut1AsE/0016x0geemhFU=; b=WxQyiiD3/GJjHQTpzeWF1egyeBKc4EqKHwcxzSgDQOBeHUXe/7TnQQgIrMNBvHoeZK GidPu1bmJGtux8YDCT13vbSHd/1VUDd8a8OgRtG585EZ6h8RXAn1RlvzV9CK0ilZSFdF zzyAw/5HVSE+fwFH/sydNLfOnpkKQKXHE3/57Lq6bRRHj1AYYZtFp6ffwBUabud/kFYL /at6sRNSVLy5qL6J16xYJx8Y3G0cTrYTs8ey1WimfdhvT9pWkUCxpEJuxtEPLO/lrXAo yflwmKhXfvBxAGVoxaRdlgtLZP1aUjBWbr3N2JmIdEMAwzZOupO8Ee35dQMPvBqXv+WZ hMmg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m67si493956oib.117.2020.02.10.10.02.55; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:03:07 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727436AbgBJSCr (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:47 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:40654 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726809AbgBJSCq (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:46 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01AHx0M7042893; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:46 -0500 Received: from ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (aa.5b.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.91.170]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2y1tpbt6ub-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:44 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 01AI08lk016488; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:43 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.26]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2y1mm6cpqd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:43 +0000 Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.107]) by b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 01AI2hwo41681326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:43 GMT Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A58912405A; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01183124052; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.2.202.60] (unknown [9.2.202.60]) by b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: sm3 - add a new alias name sm3-256 Cc: "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20200207092219.115056-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <20200207092219.115056-2-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <20200210031717.GA5198@sol.localdomain> <1a623251-e83a-3b70-9fbd-8e929a23f7d8@linux.ibm.com> <7a496bb15f264eab920bf081338d67af@MN2PR20MB2973.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> From: Ken Goldman Message-ID: <9683f764-c8c7-e123-b5f6-4f155bd1b10b@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:42 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.572 definitions=2020-02-10_06:2020-02-10,2020-02-10 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=867 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002100134 To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/10/2020 12:01 PM, Van Leeuwen, Pascal wrote: > Well, the current specification surely doesn't define anything else and is > already over a decade old. So what would be the odds that they add a > different blocksize variant_now_ AND still call that SM3-something? I just got a note from a cryptographer who said there were discussions last year about a future SM3 with 512 bit output. Given that, why not plan ahead and use sm3-256? Is there any downside? Is the cost any more than 4 bytes in some source code?