On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 04/05/2011 01:45 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Stefan Berger >> <stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 04/03/2011 05:20 AM, Blue Swirl wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Stefan Berger >>>> <stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 04/01/2011 02:14 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >>>>> >>>>> At this point there is no compile test needed since all code is >>>>> 'there'. >>>>> It's merely adding the front-end,i.e., the TPM TIS emulation to be >>>>> compiled. >>>> >>>> If the basic device (without the tpms-devel library) can be built on >>>> any OS, the flag should go to default-configs/*86*-softmmu.mak. >>>> >>> It can be built on any OS, but it is of no use since the backend >>> (libtpms) >>> is only available on Linux and we don't support it on another OS. Unless >>> someone else wants to port it to other OSes, I'd say that the test for >>> Linux >>> is useful. >>> I'd actually also only compile the TIS if libtpms could be found, and >>> terminate with an error message otherwise. I would add this restriction >>> only >>> in the last patch, so that in patch 4 at least for now the TIS can be >>> built. >>> Does that sound reasonable? >> >> It should be possible to emulate the device (to some degree) without >> relying on backend. See for example the recently committed smart card >> device. >> > In case of a TPM, the specs are huge and translate into multiple 10k lines > of code. If there was to be a dummy backend, all it could send back would be > error messages...
Then how about emulating the library instead so that all calls return failure? If a device is built only in special circumstances, it will be more prone to bit rot. We have a few such devices though, so it's not so big deal.
