On a Wednesday in 2020, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
Aside from trivial XML parsing/format changes, this patch adds
additional rules for TPM device support to better accomodate
all the available scenarios with the new TPM Proxy.
The changes make no impact to existing domains. This means that
the scenario of a domain with a single TPM device is still
supported in the same way. The restriction of multiple TPM devices
got alleviated to allow a TPM Proxy device to be added together
with a TPM device in the same domain. All other combinations
are still forbidden.
To summarize, after this patch, the following combinations in the same
domain are valid:
- a single TPM device
- a single TPM Proxy device
- a single TPM + single TPM Proxy devices
These combinations in the same domain are NOT allowed:
- 2 or more TPM devices
- 2 or more TPM Proxy devices
Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@xxxxxxxxx>
---
src/conf/domain_conf.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
index 01a32f62d1..8164cd58c9 100644
--- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
+++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
@@ -13730,6 +13730,14 @@ virDomainTPMDefParseXML(virDomainXMLOptionPtr xmlopt,
goto error;
}
+ /* TPM Proxy devices have 'passthrough' backend */
+ if (def->model == VIR_DOMAIN_TPM_MODEL_SPAPR_PROXY &&
+ def->type != VIR_DOMAIN_TPM_TYPE_PASSTHROUGH) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s",
+ _("'Passthrough' backend is required for TPM Proxy devices"));
+ goto error;
+ }
+
This check should be in a Validate function, not the parser.
if (virDomainDeviceInfoParseXML(xmlopt, node, &def->info, flags) < 0)
goto error;
@@ -21972,15 +21980,39 @@ virDomainDefParseXML(xmlDocPtr xml,
if ((n = virXPathNodeSet("./devices/tpm", ctxt, &nodes)) < 0)
goto error;
- if (n > 1) {
+ if (n > 2) {
virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s",
- _("only a single TPM device is supported"));
+ _("a maximum of two TPM devices is supported, one of "
+ "them being a TPM Proxy device"));
goto error;
}
if (n > 0) {
- if (!(def->tpm = virDomainTPMDefParseXML(xmlopt, nodes[0], ctxt, flags)))
- goto error;
+ for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
+ g_autoptr(virDomainTPMDef) dev = NULL;
+
+ if (!(dev = virDomainTPMDefParseXML(xmlopt, nodes[i], ctxt, flags)))
+ goto error;
+
+ /* TPM Proxy devices must be held in def->tpmproxy. Error
+ * out if there's a TPM Proxy declared already */
+ if (dev->model == VIR_DOMAIN_TPM_MODEL_SPAPR_PROXY) {
+ if (def->tpmproxy) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s",
+ _("only a single TPM Proxy device is supported"));
+ goto error;
+ }
+ def->tpmproxy = g_steal_pointer(&dev);
+ } else {
+ /* all other TPM devices goes to def->tpm */
Any reason why you store them separately? It seems they are treated the same in every place except when building QEMU command line. Switching to a def->tpms array would better reflect the XML. The Validate function would then check wheteher there's just one copy of each device type. Jano
+ if (def->tpm) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s",
+ _("only a single TPM non-proxy device is supported"));
+ goto error;
+ }
+ def->tpm = g_steal_pointer(&dev);
+ }
+ }
}
VIR_FREE(nodes);
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
