Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256 | From | Tianjia Zhang <> | Date | Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:46:11 +0800 |
| |
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 <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> > > 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
| |