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;
Message-ID: <ff3d1d11291b7e115317b06503f0ec52949122ca.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] use SM3 instead of SM3_256
From:   James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
Reply-To: jejb@linux.ibm.com
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:07:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXGiC-LCc-50cfddJxJ-mezO=fcLqhJHiK110CgxKusy9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20211026075626.61975-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
         <CAMj1kXGiC-LCc-50cfddJxJ-mezO=fcLqhJHiK110CgxKusy9w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 18:08 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 09:56, Tianjia Zhang
> <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> 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?

Me too on this.  Plus the various standards bodies we follow are still
using the 256 suffix and it's not clear they'll change.

Finally, I'm not sure, given the confusion over sha256 and sha3-256,
that the IETF won't eventually decide that all hash algorithms should
be designated by <algorithm>-<bitlength> in which case this will get
churned again ...

James