Re: [PATCH v1 1/8] docs: documentation and schema for the new TPM Proxy device

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 5/12/20 1:44 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:21:40PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:


On 5/12/20 12:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
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 ?


It is. A TPM Proxy is not considered a TIS or CRB, so it's ok to mix it up
with another TPM device. The allowed combinations are:

- single vTPM device
- single TPM Proxy device
- a single vTPM + single TPM Proxy devices

So we do need multiple  <tpm> support in the XML for this last case
then.


Indeed we do. Working on it ATM. The plan is for this kind of XML format to be valid:


    <tpm model='tpm-tis'>
      <backend type='passthrough'>
        <device path='/dev/tpm0'/>
      </backend>
    </tpm>
    <tpm model='spapr-tpm-proxy'>
      <backend type='passthrough'>
        <device path='/dev/tpmrm0'/>
      </backend>
    </tpm>



A TPM Proxy allows a second TPM device to be added, as long as it's not a second TPM
Proxy device.


Thanks,

DHB



Regards,
Daniel





[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

  Powered by Linux