Hi Simon and Tom, On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:42:02 -0600, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Miquel, > > On 21 March 2018 at 07:49, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:51:22PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:04:55 -0400, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 02:36:56PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >> > > Hi Tom, > >> > > > >> > > Sorry for the delay. > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 07:18:40 -0500, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:53:40AM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >> > > > > Hi Tom, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:20:30 -0500, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Current U-Boot supports TPM v1.2 specification. The new > >> > > > > > > specification > >> > > > > > > (v2.0) is not backward compatible and renames/introduces > >> > > > > > > several > >> > > > > > > functions. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > This series introduces a new SPI driver following the TPM v2.0 > >> > > > > > > specification. It has been tested on a ST TPM but should be > >> > > > > > > usable with > >> > > > > > > others v2.0 compliant chips. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Then, basic functionalities are introduced one by one for the > >> > > > > > > v2.0 > >> > > > > > > specification. The INIT command now can receive a parameter to > >> > > > > > > distinguish further TPMv1/TPMv2 commands. After that, the > >> > > > > > > library itself > >> > > > > > > will know which one is pertinent and will return a special > >> > > > > > > error if the > >> > > > > > > desired command is not supported for the selected > >> > > > > > > specification. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for doing all of this. Can you please enable this > >> > > > > > feature on > >> > > > > > sandbox and/or an x86 QEMU variant where I assume we could also > >> > > > > > then > >> > > > > > setup automated testing? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Not sure I understand your request correctly: the TPM commands are > >> > > > > already available in the sandbox (I don't see what I could add), I > >> > > > > just > >> > > > > extended the current set of commands. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > However, even with these commands, we won't be able to test them > >> > > > > in a > >> > > > > sandbox unless with an actual device. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I probably miss something, can you explain a bit more what you > >> > > > > would > >> > > > > like? > >> > > > > >> > > > Can we add a valid TPM via QEMU and then test it that way? If so, we > >> > > > should enable the TPM code on qemu-x86_64 (and, well, if we can pass > >> > > > it > >> > > > on other arches, other QEMU targets) and write some test/py/tests/ > >> > > > code > >> > > > that exercises the TPM commands. Does that make sense? > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I suppose this is doable, but for what I know, the effort is > >> > > consequent. TPM 2.0 are not compatible at all with TPM 1.x , the > >> > > packets exchanged at TPM level are completely different. Hence, I > >> > > think there is almost nothing that we can take from the TPM 1.x > >> > > implementation already existing in QEMU. > >> > > >> > Ah, OK. I thought QEMU had a TPM 2.0 implementation now too, but I see > >> > I'm mistaken. > >> > > >> > > I am certain we all would benefit such a contribution, however I'm > >> > > not sure I could handle that anytime soon. > >> > > > >> > > About the series, I think it would be better that I change a macro name > >> > > ("STRINGIFY", which is wrongly named), I will send a v2 soon, can you > >> > > tell me its status otherwise? > >> > > >> > We have the usual linux/stringify.h header available, so yes, you should > >> > make use of that. > >> > >> Actually the name is misleading as I don't want to "stringify". > >> > >> I am looking for a way to easily fill a buffer of bytes from integer > >> values, ie: > >> > >> u32 value = 0x12345678; > >> u8 buf[x] = { MACRO(value), ...} to be {0x12, 0x34, 0x56, 0x78, ...} > >> > >> > >> > And I still would like to see tests written, even if > >> > they can only be executed on $board with $TPM attached via $interface, > >> > with those 3 variables documented so that others can try it out too. > >> > Does that make sense? Thanks! > >> > >> I see some TPM tests for v1.x, I can probably add some there. This will > >> test the library functions but not the "user" commands. > >> > >> To test the commands, I suggest following the lines I inserted in my > >> cover letter, but maybe I can put it also in some documentation? > >> > >> Would this fit your expectations? > > > > We have a framework to run those commands on the target and confirm that > > they behave as expected. Please write the tests to run those commands > > and confirm that they work as expected. Thanks! > > Re sandbox, it has a TPM emulator used for testing in > tpm_tis_sandbox.c - you should be able to add something similar for > v2. I wrote a complete test suite for all the TPMv2.0 commands. It runs completely fine with real hardware, see the last patch of the v2 series. I had a look to sandbox but I'm sorry, I really don't have enough time for now to achieve this additional work, I really hope the full Python test suite will be enough. Regards, Miquèl -- Miquel Raynal, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot