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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9462BC352A5 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7711C20715 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727054AbgBJSCr (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:47 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:40654 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726809AbgBJSCq (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:46 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01AHx0M7042893; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:46 -0500 Received: from ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (aa.5b.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.91.170]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2y1tpbt6ub-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:44 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 01AI08lk016488; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:43 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.26]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2y1mm6cpqd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:43 +0000 Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.107]) by b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 01AI2hwo41681326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:43 GMT Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A58912405A; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01183124052; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.2.202.60] (unknown [9.2.202.60]) by b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:02:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: sm3 - add a new alias name sm3-256 Cc: "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20200207092219.115056-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <20200207092219.115056-2-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <20200210031717.GA5198@sol.localdomain> <1a623251-e83a-3b70-9fbd-8e929a23f7d8@linux.ibm.com> <7a496bb15f264eab920bf081338d67af@MN2PR20MB2973.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> From: Ken Goldman Message-ID: <9683f764-c8c7-e123-b5f6-4f155bd1b10b@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:42 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.572 definitions=2020-02-10_06:2020-02-10,2020-02-10 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=867 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002100134 To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2/10/2020 12:01 PM, Van Leeuwen, Pascal wrote: > Well, the current specification surely doesn't define anything else and is > already over a decade old. So what would be the odds that they add a > different blocksize variant_now_ AND still call that SM3-something? I just got a note from a cryptographer who said there were discussions last year about a future SM3 with 512 bit output. Given that, why not plan ahead and use sm3-256? Is there any downside? Is the cost any more than 4 bytes in some source code?