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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable 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 D051EC34026 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:25:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13DF21D56 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:25:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726667AbgBROZC (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:25:02 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:36546 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726442AbgBROZC (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:25:02 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01IEOvU7125976 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:25:00 -0500 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2y6b56v7fc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:24:59 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:24:50 -0000 Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.194) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:24:46 -0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 01IEOjkQ40108542 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:24:45 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A24611C058; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:24:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCC411C052; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:24:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.142.171]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:24:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] crypto: fix mismatched hash algorithm name sm3-256 to sm3 From: Mimi Zohar To: Tianjia Zhang , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, ebiggers@kernel.org, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:24:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <20200217093649.97938-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <20200217093649.97938-2-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com> <1581989598.8515.233.camel@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20021814-0016-0000-0000-000002E7FAD5 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20021814-0017-0000-0000-0000334B0F1B Message-Id: <1582035883.4576.8.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.572 definitions=2020-02-18_02:2020-02-17,2020-02-18 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002180112 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2020-02-18 at 10:34 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote: > On 2020/2/18 9:33, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 17:36 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote: > >> The name sm3-256 is defined in hash_algo_name in hash_info, but the > >> algorithm name implemented in sm3_generic.c is sm3, which will cause > >> the sm3-256 algorithm to be not found in some application scenarios of > >> the hash algorithm, and an ENOENT error will occur. For example, > >> IMA, keys, and other subsystems that reference hash_algo_name all use > >> the hash algorithm of sm3. > >> > >> 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 > >> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen > > The previous version of this patch set is queued in the next- > > integrity-testing branch.  That version of this patch didn't > > change TPM_ALG_SM3_256.  Unless the TPM standard was modified, the TPM > > spec refers to it as TPM_ALG_SM3_256.  Has that changed? > > > > Mimi > > The definition in the TPM specification is still TPM_ALG_SM3_256, please > ignore the modification to the TPM definition in this patch. Ok.  Just confirming that I should ignore v2 of this patch set.  Upstreaming the original version, as queued in next-integrity- testing, is fine. thanks, Mimi