Hi Heiko,
On 1/22/26 10:12 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
Hello Quentin,
sorry for long delay...
On 14.01.26 15:22, Quentin Schulz wrote:
Hi Heiko,
Typo in title, should be doc: and not doc_.
On 1/6/26 3:14 PM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/doc/usage/cmd/sm3sum.rst b/doc/usage/cmd/sm3sum.rst
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..3b157779a0e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/usage/cmd/sm3sum.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+:
Use the canonical version:
GPL-2.0-or-later
c.f. https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fspdx.org%2Flicenses%2FGPL-2.0-or-
later.html&data=05%7C02%7Cquentin.schulz%40cherry.de%7C752a802f23394270c5f808de5996472c%7C5e0e1b5221b54e7b83bb514ec460677e%7C0%7C0%7C639046699157004614%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hFPbf2cm4pcD17T8ORnYC%2FL9VOWm2s%2B8Ebnb6TMjru8%3D&reserved=0
(Do not end it with a colon either).
okay, but I just copied from other files... for example
doc/usage/cmd/dm.rst:
1 .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+:
2
So of course I change it... but does that mean, we should fix all other
files too?
It's unnecessary churn so I would say no. Considering I had other
comments on the patch, I allowed myself this nitpick but if that was the
only thing I was bothered with I wouldn't have told you. It's still
clear we're talking about the -or-later version of the license. The
biggest issue would be with GPL-2.0 or GPLv2 for example because it
isn't clear if it's the -only version of the -or-later version since it
matches none of the SPDX license identifier.
I don't think Tom will want a patch to change all
SPDX-License-Identifier from GPL-2.0+ to GPL-2.0-or-later but maybe I'm
wrong :)
[...]
+Description
+-----------
+
+The sm3sum command calculates the SM3_256 Hash from a
Are there variants of SM3? From what I understood, it's "equivalent"
to sha256 in terms of security and efficiency, but it's SM3, just that?
As I know, there is only sm3_256 hash. If you look for example
into include/tpm-v2.h
33 #define TPM2_SM3_256_DIGEST_SIZE 32
[...]
277 TPM2_ALG_SM3_256 = 0x12,
[...]
301 #define TCG2_BOOT_HASH_ALG_SM3_256 0x00000010
So I would say we should use ``SM3`` here, instead of ``SM3_256``?
Cheers,
Quentin
