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

Hi Jarkko,

On 10/15/21 11:19 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 17:46 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:

quoted

Hi Jarkko,

On 10/12/21 11:21 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

quoted

On Sat, 2021-10-09 at 21:08 +0800, Tianjia Zhang wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>

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