[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 at linux.alibaba.com>
>>>
>>> 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