Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:5bc5:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id os5csp4312364pxb; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 02:46:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOJtm9ym6V4Yzkxl0o4qtvxMN/8PzomziQKPyr6WuinUzaHVeIZOjOlsfl9DXWlXmQulhk X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:350c:: with SMTP id ls12mr5165888pjb.36.1634204815739; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 02:46:55 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1634204815; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=l1ML0K22PFFwL2fAtkLcSaeQqKjc7HZPkY0MbcX5HRKge2WhEq9eCXHr+C2kkri2vu 1efPnsqvH2F9b5netSvX3I/AvUaZtxInSrooR+AGkaSutuPtyA1pKs1+OS2fFs2PVuNV 3qvtkO/IpMyP6qVWa6BHdB724BfHc5dCC56ynT+w3+u6rzf8PLBEoSflavbHSju1EftH ZF93FslzIaJ0+0k2kU6bHyxp1PDjYMBCZsKtVnXlZH6KkakuWA/eMCuzdmmKHJgOadIH pVn6Nn7Tw1tMqq4tYbTqwMBA1jJDrAJzwuP013M1JhDGTSqRGiabbPHg2DM50nCYurHl PS5w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :to:subject; bh=Iq9juqPJpvsLilgRmwvb8jSnCOr1glh/qqvE0rlnIso=; b=ltjSCP9bdCViORN/p1IGDQSfkX8IyJsoYnVTlDqdPN/1LcPuXuj+iFgW7gUKK+7Ial XhhZqA5geF7g/L07HU7XfgNYCTEilQp0AUZ2w9xT6bfMFIWOtoini3LO2LVjAe3ewB4s RjIu5fLxO1kX6/0A4dLTlvP0c/9Kz73umoiBDUGkm01Dp0JPhIsfIcW+6O/Xt04Vlr5K 1OulxSc4DzU1Es5VGQhDZ7F1apcc53bOjOlK57vKXeR+K8XxWyCHcR2RjEIdCb0yZLSV Wn/FLxHTbZHvjlzxkfG+75M1rSyEv2OZisoCWpN+5sE+Ozy925DuPe1UNrCUUqzAv9IR pbqQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c5si3601746plg.119.2021.10.14.02.46.29; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 02:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230026AbhJNJsc (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 14 Oct 2021 05:48:32 -0400 Received: from out4436.biz.mail.alibaba.com ([47.88.44.36]:60790 "EHLO out4436.biz.mail.alibaba.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229468AbhJNJsb (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2021 05:48:31 -0400 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R141e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04407;MF=tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=18;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0UroTJsU_1634204772; Received: from B-455UMD6M-2027.local(mailfrom:tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0UroTJsU_1634204772) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:46:13 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256 To: Jarkko Sakkinen , James Bottomley , Mimi Zohar , Jonathan Corbet , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Peter Huewe , Jason Gunthorpe , David Howells , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Jerry Snitselaar , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org References: <20211009130828.101396-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <20211009130828.101396-3-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> From: Tianjia Zhang Message-ID: <5db32f21-1df7-c92e-42a1-a2a85b29dfbf@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:46:11 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org 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 > > 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