On 2020/2/18 9:33, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 17:36 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
>> The name sm3-256 is defined in hash_algo_name in hash_info, but the
>> algorithm name implemented in sm3_generic.c is sm3, which will cause
>> the sm3-256 algorithm to be not found in some application scenarios of
>> the hash algorithm, and an ENOENT error will occur. For example,
>> IMA, keys, and other subsystems that reference hash_algo_name all use
>> the hash algorithm of sm3.
>>
>> 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 <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>
>
> The previous version of this patch set is queued in the next-
> integrity-testing branch. That version of this patch didn't
> change TPM_ALG_SM3_256. Unless the TPM standard was modified, the TPM
> spec refers to it as TPM_ALG_SM3_256. Has that changed?
>
> Mimi
>
The definition in the TPM specification is still TPM_ALG_SM3_256, please
ignore the modification to the TPM definition in this patch.
Thanks,
Tianjia