[PATCH v3 0/6] Add support for SM3 secure hash

[Ilias Apalodimas]

Heiko,

I had another look. Oberall the changes seem fine and I don't mind keeping them.
Any chance you tested this on actual hardware?

Cheers
/Ilias

On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 16:11, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 09:02:28AM +0100, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> > Hello Ilias,
> >
> > On 05.12.25 08:24, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 07:03, Heiko Schocher <hs at nabladev.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On 04.12.25 20:31, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 05:30:36 +0100, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Add SM3 secure hash, as specified by OSCCA GM/T 0004-2012 SM3 and described
> > > > > > at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sca-cfrg-sm3-02
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TPMv2 defines hash algo sm3_256, which is currently
> > > > > > not supported and prevented TPMv2 chip with newer
> > > > > > firmware to work with U-Boot. Seen this on a ST33TPHF2XI2C
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Applied to u-boot/next, thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > [1/6] lib: Import rol32 function from Linux
> > > > >         commit: 6a0c939b88fd42c6b0a374f7c87317f292df46a1
> > > > > [2/6] lib: import sm3 256 hash parts from linux
> > > > >         commit: 41c0131b950a16747929ab310588cf5db8e38123
> > > > > [3/6] lib: sm3: implement U-Boot parts
> > > > >         commit: c4ab316269debc321907acc4f8f02dfe5653aeaf
> > > > > [4/6] test: cmd: hash: add unit test for sm3_256
> > > > >         commit: 213601a600f1e8894cea76b0bfc131f038882407
> > > > > [5/6] tpm2: add sm3 256 hash support
> > > > >         commit: 7c3f05ad51e4bc23dd4f411f28968f1d8f43099c
> > > > > [6/6] test: cmd: fix a typo in md5 test
> > > > >         commit: b30557b3b46c5162cb88a57907c517ed95557239
> > > >
> > > > Oh, may a little to fast, as Ilias and Quentin had some comments
> > > > about tpm2 implementation/test (tpm2: add sm3 256 hash support
> > > > patch). But I can send changes on top of that patches (but
> > > > give me some time for it... end of year rally has started...)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yea I pinged Tom yesterday.
> > > tbh, my main concern was testing the changes. I dont mind if we revert
> > > and reapply or send the changes on top.
> >
> > I am fine with sending updates on top.
>
> Sorry for getting ahead of everyone else here, since it sounds like
> everyone is OK with updates on top, we can move forward. Thanks!
>
> --
> Tom