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

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, 2021-10-18 at 10:37 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> 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

In which patch that symbol is removed?

/Jarkko