Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: sm3 - add a new alias name sm3-256
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-02-10 03:17:31
Also in:
linux-crypto, linux-integrity, lkml
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 05:22:18PM +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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 cannot use the hash algorithm of sm3. This patch adds an alias name sm3-256 to sm3, which can better solve the above problems. Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <redacted> --- crypto/sm3_generic.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)diff --git a/crypto/sm3_generic.c b/crypto/sm3_generic.c index 3468975215ca..ded41031bd5f 100644 --- a/crypto/sm3_generic.c +++ b/crypto/sm3_generic.c@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ int crypto_sm3_finup(struct shash_desc *desc, const u8 *data, } EXPORT_SYMBOL(crypto_sm3_finup); -static struct shash_alg sm3_alg = { +static struct shash_alg sm3_algs[2] = { { .digestsize = SM3_DIGEST_SIZE, .init = sm3_base_init, .update = crypto_sm3_update,@@ -176,16 +176,28 @@ static struct shash_alg sm3_alg = { .cra_blocksize = SM3_BLOCK_SIZE, .cra_module = THIS_MODULE, } -}; +}, { + .digestsize = SM3_DIGEST_SIZE, + .init = sm3_base_init, + .update = crypto_sm3_update, + .final = sm3_final, + .finup = crypto_sm3_finup, + .descsize = sizeof(struct sm3_state), + .base = { + .cra_name = "sm3-256", + .cra_blocksize = SM3_BLOCK_SIZE, + .cra_module = THIS_MODULE, + } +} };
According to https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-oscca-cfrg-sm3-01.html, SM3 always produces a 256-bit hash value. E.g., it says: "SM3 produces an output hash value of 256 bits long" and "SM3 is a hash function that generates a 256-bit hash value." I don't see any mention of "SM3-256". So why not just keep it as "sm3" and change hash_info.c instead? Since the name there is currently wrong, no one can be using it yet. - Eric