From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4136C433E0 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:28:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 868602077D for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:28:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 868602077D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:45172 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jhEGX-0003Bp-OA for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 11:28:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55128) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jhEFI-0002RS-Kw; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 11:27:00 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:9668) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jhEFG-0006rB-Fm; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 11:27:00 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 055F3DR4041928; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:26:54 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31fm40qd27-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 05 Jun 2020 11:26:53 -0400 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 055EXhLu043105; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:26:51 -0400 Received: from ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (a.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.10]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31fm40qd1e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 05 Jun 2020 11:26:51 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 055FKInX010808; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:26:49 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.26]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 31bf4axu3m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 05 Jun 2020 15:26:49 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22036.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 055FPmvF1967084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:25:48 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E905B206C; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:25:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A047B2076; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:25:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sbct-3.pok.ibm.com (unknown [9.47.158.153]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:25:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [RFC 4/6] tests: tpm-emu: Remove assert on TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS To: Auger Eric , eric.auger.pro@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, peter.maydell@linaro.org, mst@redhat.com, shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com, imammedo@redhat.com References: <20200601102113.1207-1-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200601102113.1207-5-eric.auger@redhat.com> <50a54958-e9e0-c95f-3893-f7f790186e0e@linux.ibm.com> <80ce5833-90ee-cbc5-9822-cca1fabc33e6@redhat.com> <228f7928-9ffa-498d-0158-aa08e7c3ca55@redhat.com> From: Stefan Berger Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:25:48 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <228f7928-9ffa-498d-0158-aa08e7c3ca55@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-05_04:2020-06-04, 2020-06-05 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006050109 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.156.1; envelope-from=stefanb@linux.ibm.com; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/05 11:26:55 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.1-3.10 [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: marcandre.lureau@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com, lersek@redhat.com, ardb@kernel.org, philmd@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" 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 >>>>> --- >>>>>    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...    Stefan > > Thank you in advance > > Best Regards > > Eric > >>    Stefan >> >> >>