Re: [RFC 4/6] tests: tpm-emu: Remove assert on TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS

[Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>]

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.auger@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,
> 
> 
>