From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.214.68; helo=mail-it0-f68.google.com; envelope-from=mlureau@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-it0-f68.google.com (mail-it0-f68.google.com [209.85.214.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D79B3207E36A7 for ; Thu, 17 May 2018 07:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-f68.google.com with SMTP id z6-v6so9091150iti.4 for ; Thu, 17 May 2018 07:44:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jHDefO9ZqRDrg60wRmIEcYiWh9mJq/lVAfGwu3glna8=; b=gQvzPs3ceS4VGLngZe0FhAFpXN4B3kN0oUs3uFZUE8ooDClFFhT6nFhb6EmzeCoRmc FVVAmG0IK/H1wNvEScGsda31qVoyvLiknMnEwqWjhPHGnON6PTDAUFaGIuNsahBCfyz7 LaP1/RIzylkC4HCAkQadl+YGAm7mUfkUZVCaUUbHChxFHDqJE13uI8n2nXstDO0iyRnb Z1HpI/BsAA+I6iOo8nxc4m7m82R9Bo+FWkR1xCodyhYrmzj6n/8gJEjHj6ZFwC5qPAEb WWrlSIgbhv5VcARhvV4B9NKw6ch7TVGralLcMLkazgTn53BJCCi7jTo4teKRiDDoe0C5 Ui8w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdPoh/Lf2YbAlPbgMN1U4EAurRz9+DlUYWOEmd9DCv1WIJvXmyz jO6GYakS6b3xYlzlNZuPMqWfpNmEhI6++bVj21c9tQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZogoNWlnK7nOp2PrqQo39k2Bh0nYA+C4NWsY7ni3FAoqC39epWOTovUACshGrnBmYqS+4L7Wj2806oXPQedfiE= X-Received: by 2002:a24:1301:: with SMTP id 1-v6mr3043951itz.55.1526568292279; Thu, 17 May 2018 07:44:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a4f:1503:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2018 07:44:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20180515123007.10164-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyYy1BbmRyw6kgTHVyZWF1?= Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 16:44:51 +0200 Message-ID: To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org, qemu-devel , javierm@redhat.com, pjones@redhat.com, jiewen.yao@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RFC: ovmf: Add support for TPM Physical Presence interface X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 14:44:53 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 05/15/18 14:30, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: >> From: Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau >> >> 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