On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 8:26 AM Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/24/23 11:21, Joelle van Dyne wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 8:17 AM Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 11/23/23 19:56, Joelle van Dyne wrote: > >>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 4:12 PM Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 11/14/23 16:05, Stefan Berger wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 11/14/23 13:03, Stefan Berger wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 11/14/23 04:36, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:12 AM Joelle van Dyne <j...@getutm.app> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joelle van Dyne <j...@getutm.app> > >>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> nit: you also added tests for x86, could be a different patch? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For arm, the test fails until next patch with: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> # starting QEMU: exec ./qemu-system-aarch64 -qtest > >>>>>>> unix:/tmp/qtest-991279.sock -qtest-log /dev/null -chardev > >>>>>>> socket,path=/tmp/qtest-991279.qmp,id=char0 -mon > >>>>>>> chardev=char0,mode=control -display none -audio none -machine virt > >>>>>>> -accel tcg -nodefaults -nographic -drive > >>>>>>> if=pflash,format=raw,file=pc-bios/edk2-aarch64-code.fd,readonly=on > >>>>>>> -drive if=pflash,format=raw,file=pc-bios/edk2-arm-vars.fd,snapshot=on > >>>>>>> -cdrom tests/data/uefi-boot-images/bios-tables-test.aarch64.iso.qcow2 > >>>>>>> -cpu cortex-a57 -chardev > >>>>>>> socket,id=chr,path=/tmp/qemu-test_acpi_virt_tcg_crb-device.KZ3GE2/sock > >>>>>>> -tpmdev emulator,id=dev,chardev=chr -device tpm-crb-device,tpmdev=dev > >>>>>>> -accel qtest > >>>>>>> Warning! zero length expected file > >>>>>>> 'tests/data/acpi/virt/TPM2.crb-device.tpm2' > >>>>>>> Warning! zero length expected file > >>>>>>> 'tests/data/acpi/virt/DSDT.crb-device.tpm2' > >>>>>>> acpi-test: Warning! binary file mismatch. Actual > >>>>>>> [aml:/tmp/aml-GO4ME2], Expected > >>>>>>> [aml:tests/data/acpi/virt/TPM2.crb-device.tpm2]. > >>>>>>> See source file tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c for instructions on how > >>>>>>> to update expected files. > >>>>>>> acpi-test: Warning! binary file mismatch. Actual > >>>>>>> [aml:/tmp/aml-6N4ME2], Expected > >>>>>>> [aml:tests/data/acpi/virt/DSDT.crb-device.tpm2]. > >>>>>>> See source file tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c for instructions on how > >>>>>>> to update expected files. > >>>>>>> to see ASL diff between mismatched files install IASL, rebuild QEMU > >>>>>>> from scratch and re-run tests with V=1 environment variable set** > >>>>>>> ERROR:../tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c:538:test_acpi_asl: assertion > >>>>>>> failed: (all_tables_match) > >>>>>>> not ok /aarch64/acpi/virt/tpm2-crb - > >>>>>>> ERROR:../tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c:538:test_acpi_asl: assertion > >>>>>>> failed: (all_tables_match) > >>>>>>> Bail out! > >>>>>>> qemu-system-aarch64: tpm-emulator: Could not cleanly shutdown the TPM: > >>>>>>> Resource temporarily unavailable > >>>>>>> Unexpected error in qio_channel_socket_writev() at > >>>>>>> ../io/channel-socket.c:622: > >>>>>>> /home/elmarco/src/qemu/buildall/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test: Unable > >>>>>>> to write to socket: Bad file descriptor > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Travis testing on s390x I see the following failures for this patchset > >>>>>> (search for 'ERROR'): > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://app.travis-ci.com/github/stefanberger/qemu-tpm/builds/267230363 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Summary of Failures: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 134/320 qemu:qtest+qtest-aarch64 / qtest-aarch64/tpm-crb-device-test > >>>>>> ERROR 0.70s killed by signal 6 SIGABRT > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 219/320 qemu:qtest+qtest-x86_64 / qtest-x86_64/tpm-crb-test > >>>>>> ERROR 0.88s killed by signal 6 SIGABRT > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Summary of Failures: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 271/537 qemu:qtest+qtest-i386 / qtest-i386/tpm-crb-test > >>>>>> ERROR 0.59s killed by signal 6 SIGABRT > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My guess is it's an endianess issue on big endian machines due to > >>>>>> reading from the ROM device where we lost the .endianess: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +const MemoryRegionOps tpm_crb_memory_ops = { > >>>>>> + .read = tpm_crb_mmio_read, > >>>>>> + .write = tpm_crb_mmio_write, > >>>>>> + .endianness = DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN, > >>>>>> + .valid = { > >>>>>> + .min_access_size = 1, > >>>>>> + .max_access_size = 4, > >>>>>> + }, > >>>>>> +}; > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I think we need a 2nd set of registers to support the endianess > >>>>> conversion. It's not exactly nice, though. Basically the saved_regs > >>>>> could be used for this directly, even though I did not do that but > >>>>> introduced n_regs: > >>>>> https://github.com/stefanberger/qemu-tpm/commit/90f6b21c0dd93dbb13d9e80a628f5b631fd07d91 > >>>>> > >>>>> This patch allows the tests on s390x to run farther but the execution of > >>>>> the command doesn't seem to work maybe due to command data that were > >>>>> also written in wrong endianess. I don't know. I would have to get > >>>>> access to a big endian / s390 machine to be able to fix it. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The latest version now passes on Travis s390x: > >>>> https://app.travis-ci.com/github/stefanberger/qemu-tpm/builds/267245220 > >>>> > >>> > >>> Are the tests failing on S390X due to the added code or are they > >>> failing because previously it was untested? I don't think the original > >>> code took account of endianness and that should be fixed, but feels > >>> like it should be in a separate patch set? > >> > >> They are failing because something like the topmost one or two patches > >> as in this branch here are missing for a big endian host: > >> > >> https://github.com/stefanberger/qemu-tpm/tree/joelle.v5%2B2nd_registers > > > > Right, but is this issue new due to the patchset? i.e. if just the > > Yes, it is due to this patchset. The reason is that CRB switched to a > ROMD interface where the fact that the MMIO registers are little endian > got lost for existing x86_64 support. > > > tests were added without the other patches, would they still fail? If > > so, I think the fixes should be in another patchset while we disable > > them in this patchset.
I see, how do you want to best integrate your changes? Do you want me to squash your changes into the patch that introduces the code? Or do you want them to be separate commits?
