From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53075) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edgBt-0000gM-AC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:47:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edgBo-0002dx-U3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:47:29 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56012) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edgBo-0002bu-Jg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:47:24 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:47:15 -0200 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20180122174715.GM5292@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180119141105.29095-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <20180119141105.29095-5-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <3c334ed0-3d9d-1ef5-27b7-aa587e5acd81@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6cb2b88f-0c8b-4bab-c8fc-018dd0cbc662@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180122172546.GI5292@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/5] tpm: add CRB device List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marc-Andr=E9?= Lureau Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel , Stefan Berger , Markus Armbruster , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Paolo Bonzini , Marcel Apfelbaum , Igor Mammedov , Richard Henderson On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 06:32:37PM +0100, Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau wrote: > Hi >=20 > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Eduardo Habkost = wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:08:30PM +0100, Marc-Andre Lureau wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:01 PM, Stefan Berger > >> wrote: > >> > On 01/21/2018 02:24 PM, Marc-Andre Lureau wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Stefan Berger > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> On 01/20/2018 07:54 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 01/19/2018 11:11 AM, Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> tpm_crb is a device for TPM 2.0 Command Response Buffer (CRB) > >> >>>>> Interface as defined in TCG PC Client Platform TPM Profile (PT= P) > >> >>>>> Specification Family =E2=80=9C2.0=E2=80=9D Level 00 Revision 0= 1.03 v22. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The PTP allows device implementation to switch between TIS and= CRB > >> >>>>> model at run time, but given that CRB is a simpler device to > >> >>>>> implement, I chose to implement it as a different device. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The device doesn't implement other locality than 0 for now (my= laptop > >> >>>>> TPM doesn't either, so I assume this isn't so bad) > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The command/reply memory region is statically allocated after = the CRB > >> >>>>> registers address TPM_CRB_ADDR_BASE + sizeof(struct crb_regs) = (I > >> >>>>> wonder if the BIOS could or should allocate it instead, or wha= t size > >> >>>>> to use, again this seems to fit well expectations) > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The PTP doesn't specify a particular bus to put the device. So= I added > >> >>>>> it on the system bus directly, so it could hopefully be used e= asily on > >> >>>>> a different platform than x86. Currently, it fails to init on = piix, > >> >>>>> because error_on_sysbus_device() check. The check may be chang= ed in a > >> >>>>> near future, see discussion on the qemu-devel ML. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Tested with some success with Linux upstream and Windows 10, s= eabios & > >> >>>>> modified ovmf. The device is recognized and correctly transmit > >> >>>>> command/response with passthrough & emu. However, we are missi= ng PPI > >> >>>>> ACPI part atm. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau > >> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger > >> >>>>> --- > >> >>>>> qapi/tpm.json | 5 +- > >> >>>>> include/hw/acpi/tpm.h | 72 ++++++++ > >> >>>>> include/sysemu/tpm.h | 3 + > >> >>>>> hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 34 +++- > >> >>>>> hw/tpm/tpm_crb.c | 327 > >> >>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> >>>>> default-configs/i386-softmmu.mak | 1 + > >> >>>>> default-configs/x86_64-softmmu.mak | 1 + > >> >>>>> hw/tpm/Makefile.objs | 1 + > >> >>>>> 8 files changed, 434 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > >> >>>>> create mode 100644 hw/tpm/tpm_crb.c > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> diff --git a/qapi/tpm.json b/qapi/tpm.json > >> >>>>> index 7093f268fb..d50deef5e9 100644 > >> >>>>> --- a/qapi/tpm.json > >> >>>>> +++ b/qapi/tpm.json > >> >>>>> @@ -11,10 +11,11 @@ > >> >>>>> # An enumeration of TPM models > >> >>>>> # > >> >>>>> # @tpm-tis: TPM TIS model > >> >>>>> +# @tpm-crb: TPM CRB model (since 2.12) > >> >>>>> # > >> >>>>> # Since: 1.5 > >> >>>>> ## > >> >>>>> -{ 'enum': 'TpmModel', 'data': [ 'tpm-tis' ] } > >> >>>>> +{ 'enum': 'TpmModel', 'data': [ 'tpm-tis', 'tpm-crb' ] } > >> >>>>> ## > >> >>>>> # @query-tpm-models: > >> >>>>> @@ -28,7 +29,7 @@ > >> >>>>> # Example: > >> >>>>> # > >> >>>>> # -> { "execute": "query-tpm-models" } > >> >>>>> -# <- { "return": [ "tpm-tis" ] } > >> >>>>> +# <- { "return": [ "tpm-tis", "tpm-crb" ] } > >> >>>>> # > >> >>>>> ## > >> >>>>> { 'command': 'query-tpm-models', 'returns': ['TpmModel'] } > >> >>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/tpm.h b/include/hw/acpi/tpm.h > >> >>>>> index 6d516c6a7f..b0048515fa 100644 > >> >>>>> --- a/include/hw/acpi/tpm.h > >> >>>>> +++ b/include/hw/acpi/tpm.h > >> >>>>> @@ -16,11 +16,82 @@ > >> >>>>> #ifndef HW_ACPI_TPM_H > >> >>>>> #define HW_ACPI_TPM_H > >> >>>>> +#include "qemu/osdep.h" > >> >>>>> + > >> >>>>> #define TPM_TIS_ADDR_BASE 0xFED40000 > >> >>>>> #define TPM_TIS_ADDR_SIZE 0x5000 > >> >>>>> #define TPM_TIS_IRQ 5 > >> >>>>> +struct crb_regs { > >> >>>>> + union { > >> >>>>> + uint32_t reg; > >> >>>>> + struct { > >> >>>>> + unsigned tpm_established:1; > >> >>>>> + unsigned loc_assigned:1; > >> >>>>> + unsigned active_locality:3; > >> >>>>> + unsigned reserved:2; > >> >>>>> + unsigned tpm_reg_valid_sts:1; > >> >>>>> + } bits; > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I suppose this is little-endian layout, so this won't work on b= ig-endian > >> >>>> hosts. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Can you add a qtest? > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> + } loc_state; > >> >>>>> + uint32_t reserved1; > >> >>>>> + uint32_t loc_ctrl; > >> >>>>> + union { > >> >>>>> + uint32_t reg; > >> >>>>> + struct { > >> >>>>> + unsigned granted:1; > >> >>>>> + unsigned been_seized:1; > >> >>>>> + } bits; > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> This is unclear where you expect those bits (right/left aligned= ). > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Can you add an unnamed field to be more explicit? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> i.e. without using struct if left alignment expected: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> unsigned granted:1, been_seized:1, :30; > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> I got rid of all the bitfields and this patch here makes it work= on a > >> >>> ppc64 > >> >>> big endian and also x86_64 host: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> https://github.com/stefanberger/qemu-tpm/commit/28fc07f0d9314168= 986190effd6d72d9fd3972dd > >> >>> > >> >> Thank you Stefan! I am all for squashing this fix to the patch. Y= ou > >> >> should then add your signed-off to the commit. > >> > > >> > > >> > I'll do that. > >> > > >> > The TIS is an ISA Device and the CRB is similar. Considering the > >> > >> How much similarity is there between TIS and CRB is there? The two > >> devices look quite different to me, CRB is way simpler it seems. Or = is > >> the CRB implementation just lacking many bells and whistles that TIS > >> has? Should we consider merging CRB in TIS? > >> > >> > complications with the sysbus devices where one has to explicitly = allow it > >> > for a certain machine type, I would advocate to convert the CRB to= an ISA > >> > device. A patch that does that is this one: > >> > >> If it's only for that reason (an explicit enable), I would rather ke= ep > >> it on the system bus. Or should it be on an LPC bus? > >> > >> Eduardo, what do you think? > > > > Everything about sysbus is exceptional and confusing, so I would > > prefer to avoid using sysbus every time we have an alternative. > > If tpm-tis is already an ISA device, what are the reasons to not > > use ISA for tpm-crb too? >=20 > I was hoping this would make the device more portable (especially on > arm) and avoid using legacy bus or resources. >=20 > Putting it on ISA doesn't reflect better what a real hardware is like, > or does it? I don't know what the hardware interface for those devices look like, the documentation I found for TPM-CRB seem to be purely for the software interface. Is there a reason to make it a sysbus device instead of a bus-less device, then? --=20 Eduardo