On 12/10/24 08:34, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> From: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
>
> If the SNP boot has a SVSM, probe for the vTPM device by sending a
> SVSM_VTPM_QUERY call (function 8). The SVSM will return a bitmap with
> the TPM_SEND_COMMAND bit set only if the vTPM is present and it is able
> to handle TPM commands at runtime.
>
> If a vTPM is found, register a platform device as "platform:tpm" so it
> can be attached to the tpm_platform.c driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
> [CC] Used SVSM_VTPM_QUERY to probe the TPM
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Carvalho <[email protected]>
> [SG] Code adjusted with some changes introduced in 6.11
> [SG] Used macro for SVSM_VTPM_CALL
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c b/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
> index c5b0148b8c0a..ec0153fddc9e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> #include <linux/cpumask.h>
> #include <linux/efi.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/tpm_platform.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/psp-sev.h>
> #include <linux/dmi.h>
> @@ -2578,6 +2579,51 @@ static struct platform_device sev_guest_device = {
> .id = -1,
> };
>
> +static struct platform_device tpm_device = {
> + .name = "tpm",
> + .id = -1,
> +};
> +
> +static int snp_issue_svsm_vtpm_send_command(u8 *buffer)
> +{
> + struct svsm_call call = {};
> +
> + call.caa = svsm_get_caa();
> + call.rax = SVSM_VTPM_CALL(SVSM_VTPM_CMD);
> + call.rcx = __pa(buffer);
> +
> + return svsm_perform_call_protocol(&call);
> +}
> +
> +static bool is_svsm_vtpm_send_command_supported(void)
> +{
> + struct svsm_call call = {};
> + u64 send_cmd_mask = 0;
> + u64 platform_cmds;
> + u64 features;
> + int ret;
> +
> + call.caa = svsm_get_caa();
> + call.rax = SVSM_VTPM_CALL(SVSM_VTPM_QUERY);
> +
> + ret = svsm_perform_call_protocol(&call);
> +
> + if (ret != SVSM_SUCCESS)
> + return false;
> +
> + features = call.rdx_out;
> + platform_cmds = call.rcx_out;
> +
> + /* No feature supported, it must be zero */
> + if (features)
> + return false;
I think this check should be removed. The SVSM currently returns all
zeroes for the features to allow for future support. If a new feature is
added in the future, this then allows a driver that supports that
feature to operate with a version of an SVSM that doesn't have that
feature implemented. It also allows a version of the driver that doesn't
know about that feature to work with an SVSM that has that feature.
A feature added to the vTPM shouldn't alter the behavior of something
that isn't using or understands that feature.
> +
> + /* TPM_SEND_COMMAND - platform command 8 */
> + send_cmd_mask = 1 << 8;
> +
> + return (platform_cmds & send_cmd_mask) == send_cmd_mask;
> +}
> +
> static int __init snp_init_platform_device(void)
> {
> struct sev_guest_platform_data data;
> @@ -2593,6 +2639,24 @@ static int __init snp_init_platform_device(void)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> pr_info("SNP guest platform device initialized.\n");
> +
> + /*
> + * The VTPM device is available only if we have a SVSM and
> + * its VTPM supports the TPM_SEND_COMMAND platform command
s/VTPM/vTPM/g
Thanks,
Tom
> + */
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TCG_PLATFORM) && snp_vmpl &&
> + is_svsm_vtpm_send_command_supported()) {
> + struct tpm_platform_ops pops = {
> + .sendrcv = snp_issue_svsm_vtpm_send_command,
> + };
> +
> + if (platform_device_add_data(&tpm_device, &pops, sizeof(pops)))
> + return -ENODEV;
> + if (platform_device_register(&tpm_device))
> + return -ENODEV;
> + pr_info("SNP SVSM VTPM platform device initialized\n");
> + }
> +
> return 0;
> }
> device_initcall(snp_init_platform_device);
