On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 07:31:36PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> We've made similar changes for aarch64 a few years back (see
> d8a1c059e0ed and previous commits), and the rationale is the
> same: the architecture is new enough that TPM 2.0 predates it,
> so TPM 1.2 support was never considered and will just not work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 1 +
> src/qemu/qemu_validate.c | 10 ++++++----
> .../aarch64-tpm-wrong-model.aarch64-latest.err | 2 +-
> ...4-virt-default-models.riscv64-latest.abi-update.xml | 2 +-
> .../riscv64-virt-default-models.riscv64-latest.xml | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
> index bda62f2e5c..6bb18ad5a8 100644
> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
> @@ -6182,6 +6182,7 @@ qemuDomainTPMDefPostParse(virDomainTPMDef *tpm,
> tpm->data.emulator.version == VIR_DOMAIN_TPM_VERSION_DEFAULT) {
> if (tpm->model == VIR_DOMAIN_TPM_MODEL_SPAPR ||
> tpm->model == VIR_DOMAIN_TPM_MODEL_CRB ||
> + qemuDomainIsRISCVVirt(def) ||
> qemuDomainIsARMVirt(def))
> tpm->data.emulator.version = VIR_DOMAIN_TPM_VERSION_2_0;
> else
> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_validate.c b/src/qemu/qemu_validate.c
> index ac1940cb31..7b871be05f 100644
> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_validate.c
> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_validate.c
> @@ -4765,10 +4765,12 @@ qemuValidateDomainDeviceDefTPM(virDomainTPMDef *tpm,
> _("TPM 1.2 is not supported with the SPAPR device model"));
> return -1;
> }
> - /* TPM 1.2 + ARM does not work */
> - if (qemuDomainIsARMVirt(def)) {
> - virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
> - _("TPM 1.2 is not supported on ARM"));
> + /* TPM 1.2 does not work on certain modern architectures */
> + if (qemuDomainIsARMVirt(def) ||
> + qemuDomainIsRISCVVirt(def)) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED,
> + _("TPM 1.2 is not supported on architecture '%1$s'"),
> + virArchToString(def->os.arch));
> return -1;
> }
Hmm, what architectures /do/ allow 1.2 ? x86, s390x, ppc ? Should
we consider just doing an "allow list" for arches, given that going
forward nothing new should be allowed.
With 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 :|
