From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D4CC433F5 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:02:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D019361354 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:02:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230091AbhJTMEQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:04:16 -0400 Received: from out30-54.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.54]:46545 "EHLO out30-54.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229548AbhJTMEP (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:04:15 -0400 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R191e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04407;MF=tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=3;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0Ut2XJgK_1634731319; Received: from 30.240.99.221(mailfrom:tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0Ut2XJgK_1634731319) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:01:59 +0800 Message-ID: <416a13af-beee-ac09-38ba-166a691a8482@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:01:55 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256 Content-Language: en-US To: Ken Goldman , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org References: <20211009130828.101396-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <1749e7c3b528d361c09b40e5758b92c7386ffe1f.camel@linux.ibm.com> From: Tianjia Zhang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Hi Ken, On 10/20/21 6:26 AM, Ken Goldman wrote: > > > > On 10/11/2021 3:02 AM, Tianjia Zhang wrote: >> >> Thanks for your attention. This is really tricky. I will contact >> trustedcomputinggroup first and give some suggestions, It would be >> best if a more standard algorithm name can be used from the source of >> the specification. > > This was discussed in the TCG's TPM WG in February, 2020.  At the time, > someone said that there was a possibility of a 512-bit version in the > future. > > For TCG members: > > https://members.trustedcomputinggroup.org/wg/TPMWG/mail/thread/61442#136758 > > My guess is that, since it's already in many TCG specs and code, TCG > will want to leave it as is. > I got it. thanks for your information. Best regards, Tianjia