Hi Stefan, On 6/2/20 3:39 PM, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 6/1/20 6:21 AM, Eric Auger wrote: >> While writing tests for checking the content of TPM2 and DSDT >> along with TPM-TIS instantiation I attempted to reuse the >> framework used for TPM-TIS tests. However While dumping the >> ACPI tables I get an assert on TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS. My assumption >> is maybe the other tests did not execute long enough to encounter >> this. So I tentatively propose to remove the assert as it >> does not seem to break other tests and enable the new ones. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com> >> --- >> tests/qtest/tpm-emu.c | 1 - >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/qtest/tpm-emu.c b/tests/qtest/tpm-emu.c >> index c43ac4aef8..298d0eec74 100644 >> --- a/tests/qtest/tpm-emu.c >> +++ b/tests/qtest/tpm-emu.c >> @@ -49,7 +49,6 @@ static void *tpm_emu_tpm_thread(void *data) >> s->tpm_msg->tag = be16_to_cpu(s->tpm_msg->tag); >> s->tpm_msg->len = be32_to_cpu(s->tpm_msg->len); >> g_assert_cmpint(s->tpm_msg->len, >=, minhlen); >> - g_assert_cmpint(s->tpm_msg->tag, ==, TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS); > You should not have to remove this. The tests are skipped if swtpm does > not support TPM 2 via --tpm2 option. This would be a very old swtpm > version, though. So, all tests are run with --tpm2 option and any > response received from the TPM would be a TPM 2 response that should > have TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS as the tag. I'd be curious what other value you > are seeing there. If I revert this patch I am getting TPM2_ST_SESSIONS on my end.
Thanks Eric >> s->tpm_msg = g_realloc(s->tpm_msg, s->tpm_msg->len); >> qio_channel_read(ioc, (char *)&s->tpm_msg->code, > > >
