Hi Stefan, On 6/5/20 5:25 PM, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 6/5/20 5:35 AM, Auger Eric wrote: >> 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? > > So this is an ACPI test. What role does the firmware play for success of > the test? If the test relies on the firmware showing some sort of > expected result, then I would recommend only running this test with an > attached swtpm, like we run some other tests. If we don't need the > firmware to succeed then I would just get rid of the assert. Probably no > other test we have implemented so far was running the firmware... FWIU The goal of this test is to compare the acpi tables generated by qemu against reference ones. I dont think we expect from the FW any specific result but I would prefer Igor or Michael to confirm.
In that case, removing the assert() allows to compare the specific DSDT and TPM2 tables and that's our expectation here I think. Thanks Eric > > > Stefan > > >> >> Thank you in advance >> >> Best Regards >> >> Eric >> >>> Stefan >>> >>> >>> > >
