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 5A37CC433F5 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3604660F70 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233498AbhJINcr (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2021 09:32:47 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:35754 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233209AbhJINcq (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2021 09:32:46 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 199BVVke007307; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 09:30:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : reply-to : to : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=4Cro3IpcEkZeGz4yDmnXZpwZJa3Nd2CCDYW1ytGiNbw=; b=kJ7qtltQ0cYEWq9Lsxp0UM1v5srrA8BPAPXxyvYye4whtqVWi3TgImbPmsfmprD86HXF iM12jbOG82a13N1wuYMU/e6kvgisuf284d/QN2GNfh5qqGPXXPx8ZOBZmA/Wn30IsUC1 ofOJpzLxywpXCtcesGvjZZNj7EuGGjSWX156V7h7F0tLkzwAIu8Qfc9Rr6s+ceM+Mxwo UtqUvIR4UWeEnl+Bwf1D/EE7Q16y1uXFweOztbcFgMDy51D/NNSfEFSh52tzKUUPpN2I ckOIexRjkrTrYbu5qNA3tEfLjKrJfEayKnEsPqY/7YiNrQq0xW0VVZ+9zAy3zZV8xbKh uQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3bka9ksax0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:30:00 -0400 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 199DPc6I032508; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 09:29:59 -0400 Received: from ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com (1b.90.2fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.47.144.27]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3bka9ksawm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 09 Oct 2021 09:29:59 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 199DMVM5028876; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:29:58 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.18]) by ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3bk2q9mj6t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 09 Oct 2021 13:29:57 +0000 Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.235]) by b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 199DTuDp35717580 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:29:57 GMT Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67417806B; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:29:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1127778060; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:29:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [172.17.101.49] (unknown [9.211.116.119]) by b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:29:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <1749e7c3b528d361c09b40e5758b92c7386ffe1f.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256 From: James Bottomley Reply-To: jejb@linux.ibm.com To: Tianjia Zhang , Jarkko Sakkinen , Mimi Zohar , Jonathan Corbet , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Peter Huewe , Jason Gunthorpe , David Howells , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Jerry Snitselaar , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2021 08:29:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20211009130828.101396-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> References: <20211009130828.101396-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: WI7fZO2iFMsMT2VYtdPhk3sDP0oOa09u X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 55pBK2apPaN51qGasERyyQnEDHOUSIei Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.182.1,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.391,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-10-09_03,2021-10-07_02,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1011 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110090093 Precedence: bulk List-ID: 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. For the TPM we're following the TPM Library specification https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tpm-library-specification/ Which is very clear: the algorithm name is TPM_ALG_SM3_256 We're using sm3 as our exposed name because that's what linux crypto uses, so there should be no problem in what the end user sees, but changing to non standard TPM definitions is only going to cause confusion at the kernel level. James