On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 07:25:28AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 06/16/2016 04:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:05:20AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > * Stefan Berger (stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: > > > > On 06/15/2016 03:30 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > So what was the multi-instance vTPM proxy driver patch set about? > > > > That's for containers. > > > Why have the two mechanisms? Can you explain how the multi-instance > > > proxy works; my brief reading when I saw your patch series seemed > > > to suggest it could be used instead of CUSE for the non-container case. > > One of the key things that was/is not appealing about this CUSE approach > > is that it basically invents a new ioctl() mechanism for talking to > > a TPM chardev. With in-kernel vTPM support, QEMU probably doesn't need > > to have any changes at all - its existing driver for talking to TPM > > We still need the control channel with the vTPM to reset it upon VM reset, > for getting and setting the state of the vTPM upon snapshot/suspend/resume, > changing locality, etc.
You ultimately need the same mechanisms if using in-kernel vTPM with containers as containers can support snapshot/suspend/resume/etc too. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
