Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] crypto: fix mismatched hash algorithm name sm3-256 to sm3

[Mimi Zohar]

On Tue, 2020-02-18 at 10:34 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > The previous version of this patch set is queued in the next-
> > integrity-testing branch. ÂThat version of this patch didn't
> > changeÂTPM_ALG_SM3_256. ÂUnless the TPM standard was modified, the TPM
> > spec refers to it as TPM_ALG_SM3_256. ÂHas that changed?
> >
> > Mimi
> 
> TheÂdefinitionÂinÂtheÂTPMÂspecificationÂisÂstillÂTPM_ALG_SM3_256,Âplease
> ignoreÂtheÂmodificationÂtoÂtheÂTPMÂdefinitionÂinÂthisÂpatch.

Ok. ÂJust confirming that I should ignore v2 of this patch set.
ÂUpstreaming the original version, as queued in next-integrity-
testing, is fine.

thanks,

Mimi