"Memory Page size Minimum (MPSMIN)" is Controller Capability and impl-spec.
Is it possible for high level driver to get this attribute in UEFI scope?
To detect the LIST LENGTH with (>8) buffer size and then get the whole list
sounds like a reasonable method.
For SCT to handle this case, change the code to
if(Status == EFI_SUCCESS) ||(Status == EFI_DEVICE_ERROR) || (Status ==
EFI_WARN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL)){
Thanks
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Tian, Feng
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2016 11:18 AM
To: Ramesh R. <[email protected]>; edk2-devel <[email protected]>; Jin,
Eric <[email protected]>
Cc: Tian, Feng <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest
Ramesh,
I suspect even if you send the buffer size as 512 all the devices should return
EFI_SUCCESS as well.
As for different NVMe device behavior for length 10, it may be different
understanding on spec.
Eric,
Do you know how to handle such case in SCT?
Thanks
Feng
-----Original Message-----
From: edk2-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ramesh R.
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2016 2:06 AM
To: Tian, Feng <[email protected]>; edk2-devel <[email protected]>;
Jin, Eric <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [edk2] BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest
Hi Feng,
Some Nvme devices returns EFI_DEVICE_ERROR for the SCT test code ( when the
buffer passed with 10 bytes) and that creates failure in the SCT report.
Some Nvme devices returns EFI_SUCCESS also.
All the devices return EFI_SUCCESS if the we send the buffer size as "Memory
Page size Minimum (MPSMIN)"
Thanks,
Ramesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Tian, Feng [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 01 September 2016 8:12
To: Ramesh R.; edk2-devel; Jin, Eric
Cc: Tian, Feng
Subject: RE: BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest
I checked the ATA spec, it says the transfer length of "Trust-Send" ATA cmd
should be 512.
But for NVMe and other SCSI device, I didn't see any length limitation on
"Security Protocol In" cmd with security protocol field 0 and security protocol
specific field 0.
It seems user could pass in any length value to get security protocol
information. And last, user could get the whole one by passing down "supported
security protocol list length" + 8.
Ramesh, do you meet real failure case?
Eric, what's your opinion on this?
Thanks
Feng
-----Original Message-----
From: Ramesh R. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 1:20 AM
To: Tian, Feng <[email protected]>; edk2-devel <[email protected]>;
Jin, Eric <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest
Hi Feng,
Any update or suggestion on this? Can we consider this as SCT tool issue and
would be fixed in next version ?
Thanks,
Ramesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Tian, Feng [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 26 August 2016 12:54
To: Ramesh R.; edk2-devel; Jin, Eric
Cc: Tian, Feng
Subject: RE: BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest
Yes, I agree it's weird.
We are looking at this and will get back to you if we have findings.
Thanks
Feng
-----Original Message-----
From: edk2-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ramesh R.
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:44 PM
To: edk2-devel <[email protected]>
Subject: [edk2] BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest
Hi,
When the we run the
"BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest" test on the NVME
devices we are getting into error because of the below testing code.
//
// According to TCG definition, when the Security Protocol field is set to
00h, and SP
// Specific is set to 0000h in a TRUSTED RECEIVE command, return security
protocol
// information. This Command is not associated with a security send command
//
Status = StorageSecurityCommand->ReceiveData (
StorageSecurityCommand,
BlockIo->Media->MediaId,
100000000, // Timeout
10-sec
0, //
SecurityProtocol
0, //
SecurityProtocolSpecifcData
10, //
PayloadBufferSize,
DataBuffer, //
PayloadBuffer
&RcvDataSize
);
//
// for ATA8-ACS SecurityProtocol, 512 byte is a request
//
if (IsAtaDevice) {
if((Status == EFI_DEVICE_ERROR) || (Status == EFI_WARN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL)){
AssertionType = EFI_TEST_ASSERTION_PASSED;
} else {
AssertionType = EFI_TEST_ASSERTION_FAILED;
}
} else {
if((!EFI_ERROR(Status)) || (Status == EFI_WARN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL)){
AssertionType = EFI_TEST_ASSERTION_PASSED;
} else {
AssertionType = EFI_TEST_ASSERTION_FAILED;
}
}
For Ata devices, EFI_DEVICE_ERROR considered as valid error case and for the
Nvme ( Non ATA) device it's considered as error. Could you please let us know
why there is difference in this case ?.
Thanks,
Ramesh
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
