On 02/08/2013 05:01 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 02/08/2013 02:42 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
This patch adds support for TPM command line options.
The command line options supported here are
./qemu-... -tpmdev passthrough,path=<path to TPM device>,id=<id>
-device tpm-tis,tpmdev=<id>
and
./qemu-... -tpmdev ?
I though we preferred '-tpmdev help' instead of '-tpmdev ?' these days,
as that doesn't need shell quoting.
Will fix it. I only used this syntax because the existing '-soundhw ?'.
where the latter works similar to -soundhw ? and shows a list of
available TPM backends (for example 'passthrough').
What is the QMP counterpart command for listing all possible TPM
backends? Libvirt refuses to use command-line probing since qemu 1.3,
so we need some way for libvirt to get at the same list from QMP without
having to use '-tpmdev ?'.
Now added query-tpm-models and query-tpm-types listing the below shown
enumerations.
+++ b/qapi-schema.json
@@ -3184,3 +3184,59 @@
# Since: 1.4
##
{ 'command': 'chardev-remove', 'data': {'id': 'str'} }
+
+##
+# @TpmModel
+#
+# An enumeration of TPM models.
+#
+# @tpm-tis: TPM TIS model
+#
+# Since: 1.5
+##
+{ 'enum': 'TpmModel',
+ 'data': [ 'tpm-tis' ] }
+
+##
+# @TpmType
+#
+# An enumeration of TPM types.
+#
+# @passthrough: TPM passthrough
+#
+# Since: 1.5
+##
+{ 'enum': 'TpmType',
+ 'data': [ 'passthrough' ] }
+
+##
+# @TpmInfo:
+#
+# Information about the TPM
+#
+# @model: The TPM frontend model, i.e., tpm-tis
+#
+# @id: The ID of the TPM
+#
+# @type: The type of TPM backend, i.e., passthrough
+#
+# @path: #optional Path to the TPM backend device
+#
+# @cancel_path: #optional Path to TPM backend device's cancel sysfs entry
Prefer '-' over '_' in QMP; this should be cancel-path.
Fine, I changed it and also changed it for the command line (6/7). I
looked around in this file and searched for '_' versus '-' and found
both, rolled the dice afterwards...
+#
+# Since: 1.5
+##
+{ 'type': 'TPMInfo',
+ 'data': {'model': 'TpmModel', 'id': 'str', 'type': 'TpmType', '*path': 'str',
+ '*cancel_path': 'str' } }
Is this a case where the choice of which optional parameters are present
depends on which model was in use? That is, if we add a new model that
uses a new field, would it be better to have a union type, something like:
{ 'type': 'TPMTis', 'data': {'path':'str', '*cancel-path':'str'} }
{ 'union': 'TPMBackend',
'data': { 'tpm-tis' : 'TPMTis',
'tpm-future': 'TPMFUture' } }
{ 'type': 'TPMInfo',
'data': { 'id': 'str', 'type': 'TpmType', 'model': 'TPMBackend' } }
so that the user sees:
{ 'id': 'tpm0', 'type':'passthrough',
'model': { 'type':'tpm-tis', 'data':{'path':'/dev/tpm'} } }
not necessarily better, just food for thought.
Above is not entirely reflecting the real world. What about the following?
The backend:
{ 'type': 'TPMPassthrough', 'data': { 'type' : 'TpmType', 'path':'str',
'*cancel-path':'str'} }
{ 'union': 'TPMBE',
'data': { 'tpm-passthrough' : 'TPMPassthrough',
'tpm-future-backend': 'TPMFutureBackend' } }
The hardware device 'model' (frontend):
{ 'type' : 'TPMTis', 'data' : { model : 'TpmModel' }
{ 'union': 'TPMFE',
'data': { 'tpm-tis' : 'TPMTis',
'tpm-future-model': 'TPMFutureModel' } }
{ 'type' : 'TPMInfo'
'data' : { 'id' : 'str', 'model' : 'TPMFE', 'type' : 'TPMBE' }
The user should then see:
{ 'id': 'tpm0',
'model' : { 'model' : 'tpm-tis'},
'type' : { 'type' : 'passthrough', 'path' : '/dev/tpm0' , 'cancel-path' =
'/dev/fdset/2' } }
Stefan
