Hi Stefan, On 6/2/20 6:17 PM, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 6/2/20 12:13 PM, Auger Eric wrote: >> 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. > > Is firmware/BIOS active? There's no TPM2_ST_SESSIONS coming out of QEMU.
So it looks SeaBIOS is in use (bios-256k.bin loaded). I can see MMIO accesses to the TPM and the following commands are observable: tpm_emu_tpm_thread code=0x181 tag=0x8001 len=0xa tpm_emu_tpm_thread code=0x144 tag=0x8001 len=0xc tpm_emu_tpm_thread code=0x121 tag=0x8002 len=0x20 This last one causes the assert (TPM2_CC_HierarchyControl) I checked in Seabios and effectively tpm20_hierarchycontrol() tags the TPM2_CC_HierarchyControl command with TPM2_ST_SESSIONS Due to our emulation, maybe tpm_set_failure() gets called, inducing tpm20_hierarchycontrol() call. That being said, what do you recommend? Remove the assert, improve the emulation, other? Thank you in advance Best Regards Eric > > Stefan > > >
