From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com (mail-wr1-f65.google.com [209.85.221.65]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web09.6242.1582713685909846396 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 02:41:26 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=BDyI4f70; spf=pass (domain: linaro.org, ip: 209.85.221.65, mailfrom: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org) Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id v2so1273720wrp.12 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 02:41:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6akeF+O9bqC/gDryHLbgOCEWSexbZqIoDsOLJlEr28M=; b=BDyI4f70kcLrr62ZivzPsOFpnEq79pCYP3/MEKb9oe760XGTCuL70njj7A5gnlMW2G wf0dSD/k9Vm7/oMIFmCte5+7BW4KxQUsiv4Xl8VDQBaBIzBo5sQZEK1yffjJF0XR10En jgneirYHXORv5iRY2UyG8JxgaCne04xNn6mOIuTqN5jeVkQjULw7WlQFhTxO+LzG7vMt Uo2JMBQQbuGRIYjpuBAVNVfEKLLkglw4IsyBPohghnCpOt4sQZVY86prWqUofYQlEEoa oW5HHB4bqsMh26VbwG4Z2HS0FJNtkZBHHLquVJO3G2XWfCbWOUz6DCJP6QeBkeKpWcIR aF0w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6akeF+O9bqC/gDryHLbgOCEWSexbZqIoDsOLJlEr28M=; b=ten7qjmifGCK6voa2nK1h/YCN3hcHfKpBOU523dFlDzQBJVTW++wp6blD4/agg+xMj qGuVK1iOewXaMyUDK+kN/H0xmu/GsYeiIYc0pAE6OaXbCBsq3pr9DrHFZrCM6YlEllvg eFBHhfZIPrPxV+D3WuwDmB/uh8gZe0VFtPs6kX0p6IvUVIRymGeVWv9yIBQpsZABYFaQ 7pTlrbgz0Ye5OghfoJNXZ3qp7CdMqmMQ7fHVOIPniSrqsj1o4hDjG8K7NRatPhO6Fb+V cESoctI7Ff8QgcyYu/nVjXXGVFibo/eWIBwdwzCO/a/n5riX5+v0btV3iaF32Z209xQw i2uQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXr8udfGK/Gx/wYwXkN5xD83AMwaLN4N+8XewqxUgv2YRVaEf5 GgD2xFlgEkceH7u58gC4Ox/YE7qTbYkrZ5r7ivsGjA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw5rD8rjEHBnJAc5Rxh7rNJXx9SkfIqZaJ80WdaxZfaTi1+iBZeolAU7NrGsR0ewieUinMo2akNqu9NeSu122c= X-Received: by 2002:adf:f84a:: with SMTP id d10mr4863090wrq.208.1582713684459; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 02:41:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200225104449.22453-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20200225104449.22453-6-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <660bb2b6-5870-68b7-4324-ec1a16b58c94@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <660bb2b6-5870-68b7-4324-ec1a16b58c94@redhat.com> From: "Ard Biesheuvel" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:41:13 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 5/5] ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemu: add optional support for TPM2 measured boot To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: edk2-devel-groups-io , Auger Eric , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu=2DDaud=C3=A9?= , =?UTF-8?B?TWFyYy1BbmRyw6kgTHVyZWF1?= , Stefan Berger , Leif Lindholm Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 01:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 02/25/20 11:44, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Duplicate the TPM2_ENABLE and TPM2_CONFIG_ENABLE build time flags that > > already exist in OvmfPkg, and wire them up in the .DSC and .FDF so > > that setting those flags produces a ArmVirtQemu build that implements > > measured boot using a TPM provided by QEMU and described in the device > > tree. > > > > Note that the TPM2 driver stack relies on a PEI phase being implemented= , > > so there is no point in enabling this for ArmVirtQemuKernel or ArmVirtX= en. > > > > Also note that, despite ArmVirtQemuKernel being unaffected by this patc= h, > > ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemuFvMain.fdf.inc is being modified, for keeping the > > contexts of the referring !include directives simple. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > --- > > ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemu.dsc | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemu.fdf | 6 ++ > > ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtQemuFvMain.fdf.inc | 10 +++ > > 3 files changed, 91 insertions(+) > > Under a similar, recent patch from Marc-Andr=C3=A9 (which proposes enabli= ng > TPM-1.2 in OvmfPkg), I asked Marc-Andr=C3=A9 to build up the work in smal= l > steps, practically mirroring the gradual TPM2.0 stuff from OvmfPkg: > > * [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] Ovmf: enable TPM 1.2 support > > http://mid.mail-archive.com/bbf8cf87-9c90-5507-82b3-ae8534555a54@redhat.c= om > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54473 > > I'd like to be consistent as a review (and I indeed prefer that > approach), so I'd like to ask you for the same. > > Now if you and Marc-Andr=C3=A9 agree that I'm being unreasonable, I guess= I > could be convinced... I don't want to annoy patch authors needlessly (I > just find small gradual steps easier to understand, later). > > (Extra apologies if my current request contradicts something I asked for > in the v1 review -- please do point it out, if that's the case. I'd like > to be responsive and consistent, but there's just too much to re-review, > even incrementally. I can easily see myself making process mistakes > here, due to fatigue.) > I don't mind per se, but I'm not sure I understand how you want this to be split. - library classes first, then PCDs, then components. - PEI modules first, then DXE modules - TPM2_ENABLE pieces first, then TPM2_CONFIG_ENABLE.