On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:21:52AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 5/11/20 7:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 08:26:53AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > > > > > On 5/11/20 6:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22:57AM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > It's a different guest side interface, the H_TPM_COMM hypercall > > > > > instead of the other PAPR TPM interface. To which "why?" is a very > > > > > good question, but it's there now, so there's not much we can do about > > > > > it. > > > > That's ok. Even though its a different guest interface, it is still > > > > conceptually a TPM device at a high level, so we should be reusing > > > > the existing <tpm> device type. At most we should add a new backend > > > > type > > > I think adding a new backend type is sensible. Re-using the passthrough type > > > and making the differentiation with 'model', for a device that doesn't > > > operate exactly as a regular vTPM but can coexist with other vTPM devices, > > > will make for a lot of IFs in the code. > > Currently libvirt only allows a single <tpm>, but we can trivially > > lift that restriction to allow multiple if desired too. > > > QEMU won't accept multiple TIS or CRB devices, though. The commit message says you can do 2 at a time: "Although redundant, there is currently no technical limitation for a guest to assign both a vTPM and a TPM Proxy at the same time." is that text not accurate ? Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
