On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 09:56, Tianjia Zhang
[off-list ref] 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.

What is the point of these changes? Having '256' in the identifiers is
merely redundant and not factually incorrect, so why can't we just
leave these as they are?

---
v3 changes:
 - The fix of document trusted-encrypted.rst is put in patch 2

v2 changes:
 - an additional macro with the same value is defined for uapi instead
   of renaming directly

Tianjia Zhang (2):
  crypto: use SM3 instead of SM3_256
  tpm: use SM3 instead of SM3_256

 Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst | 2 +-
 crypto/hash_info.c                                | 4 ++--
 drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c                      | 4 ++--
 drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c                       | 2 +-
 include/crypto/hash_info.h                        | 2 +-
 include/linux/tpm.h                               | 2 +-
 include/uapi/linux/hash_info.h                    | 3 ++-
 security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c         | 2 +-
 8 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

--
2.19.1.3.ge56e4f7