Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256

[Tianjia Zhang]

Hi Jarkko,

On 10/15/21 11:19 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > 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

This series of patch is a complete replacement. Patch 1 is a replacement 
of the crypto subsystem, and patch 2 is a replacement of the tpm driver.

Best regards,
Tianjia