lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256
From
Date
On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 17:46 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> 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

Why don't you then create a patch set that fully removes SM3_256, if it
is incorrect?

This looks a bit half-baked patch set.

/Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-15 17:24    [W:0.087 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site