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

[Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>]

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.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.

Is firmware/BIOS active? There's no TPM2_ST_SESSIONS coming out of QEMU.

    Stefan