From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85FDB1A1E0A for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 20:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2016 20:18:13 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,284,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="757176090" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2016 20:18:13 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx157.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.73) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 20:18:11 -0700 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by FMSMSX157.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 20:18:10 -0700 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.91]) by shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.109]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:18:07 +0800 From: "Tian, Feng" To: Ramesh R. , edk2-devel , "Jin, Eric" CC: "Tian, Feng" Thread-Topic: BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest Thread-Index: AdH+rBKMD33ErVHaTU69l2RWRNE5FAAvq2BQAN3zvKAARX8+gABSqBWAAHcBbXA= Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 03:18:07 +0000 Message-ID: <7F1BAD85ADEA444D97065A60D2E97EE566D868BC@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <7F1BAD85ADEA444D97065A60D2E97EE538825C19@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <7F1BAD85ADEA444D97065A60D2E97EE566D84D98@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 03:18:12 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ramesh, I suspect even if you send the buffer size as 512 all the devices should re= turn EFI_SUCCESS as well. As for different NVMe device behavior for length 10, it may be different un= derstanding on spec. Eric,=20 Do you know how to handle such case in SCT? Thanks Feng -----Original Message----- From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Rame= sh R. Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2016 2:06 AM To: Tian, Feng ; edk2-devel ;= Jin, Eric Subject: Re: [edk2] BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocol= Test 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.=20 Some Nvme devices returns EFI_SUCCESS also.=20 All the devices return EFI_SUCCESS if the we send the buffer size as "Memor= y Page size Minimum (MPSMIN)" =20 Thanks, Ramesh -----Original Message----- From: Tian, Feng [mailto:feng.tian@intel.com]=20 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 proto= col specific field 0. It seems user could pass in any length value to get security protocol infor= mation. And last, user could get the whole one by passing down "supported s= ecurity 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:rameshr@ami.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 1:20 AM To: Tian, Feng ; edk2-devel ;= Jin, Eric 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:feng.tian@intel.com]=20 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.=20 We are looking at this and will get back to you if we have findings. Thanks Feng -----Original Message----- From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Rame= sh R. Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:44 PM To: edk2-devel Subject: [edk2] BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest Hi, When the we run the "BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProt= ocolTest" 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 securi= ty protocol // information. This Command is not associated with a security send com= mand // Status =3D StorageSecurityCommand->ReceiveData ( StorageSecurityCommand, BlockIo->Media->MediaId, 100000000, // Tim= eout 10-sec 0, // Sec= urityProtocol 0, // Sec= urityProtocolSpecifcData 10, // Pay= loadBufferSize, DataBuffer, // Pay= loadBuffer &RcvDataSize ); // // for ATA8-ACS SecurityProtocol, 512 byte is a request // if (IsAtaDevice) { if((Status =3D=3D EFI_DEVICE_ERROR) || (Status =3D=3D EFI_WARN_BUFFER= _TOO_SMALL)){ AssertionType =3D EFI_TEST_ASSERTION_PASSED; } else { AssertionType =3D EFI_TEST_ASSERTION_FAILED; } } else { if((!EFI_ERROR(Status)) || (Status =3D=3D EFI_WARN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL))= { AssertionType =3D EFI_TEST_ASSERTION_PASSED; } else { AssertionType =3D EFI_TEST_ASSERTION_FAILED; } } For Ata devices, EFI_DEVICE_ERROR considered as valid error case and for th= e 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 edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel