From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM (venus.amiindia.co.in [111.93.197.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2A211A1DF9 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM (IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D087D82065; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:49:53 +0530 (IST) Received: from IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM (IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C388A82064; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:49:53 +0530 (IST) Received: from webmail.amiindia.co.in (venus2.in.megatrends.com [10.0.0.7]) by IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:49:53 +0530 (IST) Received: from VENUS1.in.megatrends.com ([fe80::951:7975:6ecf:eae5]) by Venus2.in.megatrends.com ([fe80::2002:4a07:4f17:c09b%14]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:49:42 +0530 From: Ramesh R. To: "Tian, Feng" , edk2-devel , "Jin, Eric" Thread-Topic: BootableImageSupportTest\StorageSecurityCommandProtocolTest Thread-Index: AdH+rBKMD33ErVHaTU69l2RWRNE5FAAvq2BQAN3zvKA= Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:19:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7F1BAD85ADEA444D97065A60D2E97EE538825C19@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <7F1BAD85ADEA444D97065A60D2E97EE538825C19@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.0.1.130] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.1600-8.1.0.1054-22546.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.464-5.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--15.464-5.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.1600-8.1.1054-22546.001 X-TMASE-Result: 10--15.463900-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: y/2oPz6gbvgikhyG+/kfartSPxOEfQf+YQXxsZnRwoIqNag3uuW+4r2+ Pt89anuuGS2cqMY4DI4Qw9gsnchuvWNF4WaDH9Rh4EprSlQmFqAZskwWqoib3NT1Z1sGVN7DEUS 33ulD4LwFCXmAJJjxmJ2yMAVyWCLYsk3Xm9yiC75or4yxPAz7WX9Ldxw2Mj8asp5O052MzLozvr CMQwONilLkFrHIHmNbrQqYEv1AiGZ3BOMi/KC9dh3EEAbn+GRbBhfhOps3jagM74Nf6tTB9hfYL ZCZnI6R7sI95R9lcCJov+QT2sWrie9e8ifCHArbHPCema1j/6t9LQinZ4QefBziNLWewPgd+gtH j7OwNO0CpgETeT0ynA== X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.811037.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0,39:0-0 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: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:19:47 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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