Re: [PATCH 0/4] RFC: ovmf: Add support for TPM Physical Presence interface

["Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>]

Hi

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/15/18 14:30, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote:
>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The following series adds basic TPM PPI 1.3 support for OVMF-on-QEMU
>> with TPM2 (I haven't tested TPM1, for lack of interest).
>>
>> PPI test runs successfully with Windows 10 WHLK, despite the limited
>> number of supported funcions (tpm2_ppi_funcs table, in particular, no
>> function allows to manipulate Tcg2PhysicalPresenceFlags)
>>
>> The way it works is relatively simple: a memory region is allocated by
>> QEMU to save PPI related variables. An ACPI interface is exposed by
>> QEMU to let the guest manipulate those. At boot, ovmf processes and
>> updates the PPI qemu region and request variables.
>>
>> I build edk2 with:
>>
>> $ build -DTPM2_ENABLE -DSECURE_BOOT_ENABLE
>
> Is -DSECURE_BOOT_ENABLE necessary for *building* with -DTPM2_ENABLE? If
> that's the case, we should update the DSC files; users building OVMF
> from source shouldn't have to care about "-D" inter-dependencies, if we
> can manage that somehow.

No, that's only my build setup, because it is likely both will be used
together. TPM usage/tests seem to be fine without it.

>
> If -DSECURE_BOOT_ENABLE is only there because otherwise a guest OS
> doesn't really make use of -DTPM2_ENABLE either, that's different. In
> that case, it's fine to allow building OVMF with TPM2 support but
> without SB support.
>
> Thanks!
> Laszlo