Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] crypto: fix mismatched hash algorithm name sm3-256
 to sm3
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
        davem@davemloft.net, jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com,
        ebiggers@kernel.org, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, jmorris@namei.org,
        serge@hallyn.com
Cc:     linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200217093649.97938-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20200217093649.97938-2-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <1581989598.8515.233.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
Message-ID: <f99d89d5-fbe0-49b9-a24d-b282ceb33e95@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:43:08 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1581989598.8515.233.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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 <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
>> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> 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