[SLOF] [PATCH v4 00/33] Add vTPM support to SLOF

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 10/01/2020 11:48, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 1/3/20 11:11 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 1/2/20 6:21 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/01/2020 01:20, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/19 11:11 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28/12/2019 08:13, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/23/19 6:41 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/12/2019 08:40, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/18/19 6:05 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's been a while since the last attempt :) 33 is a lot! Comments
>>>>>>>>> below...
>>>>>>>> I have a series of patches now here with some of the concerns
>>>>>>>> addressed.
>>>>>>>> I would say it's bisectable but my concern is that reshuffling more
>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> will cause issues that aren't there right now. So I would
>>>>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>>>> some tolerance for refactoring while building up TPM 2 support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/stefanberger/SLOF-tpm/commits/SLOF-tpm.Dec2019.23
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> imho you are overthinking this. This needs to be several
>>>>>>> prerequisite
>>>>>>> patches (one per lib/directory/driver/whatever), one patch for
>>>>>>> vtpm v1
>>>>>> What are prerequisites? Are these functions needed by lib/libtpm but
>>>>>> are located in other directories?
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have certainly not put the patches in random order, so they do
>>>>>> compile at every step and functions needed in one step are introduced
>>>>>> before it.
>>>>> Good.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> (and I still eagerly want to hear why we want v1 at all), one
>>>>>>> patch for
>>>>>> The application stack for TSS 1.2 is (still) being packaged for
>>>>>> ppc64le:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok. But what about v2.0? "trousers" does not support it?
>>>>
>>>> There is different stack for TPM 2.0, actually there are two:
>>>>
>>>> - tss2 (IBM):
>>>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=23163
>>>>
>>>> - tpm2-tss (Intel):
>>>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1422031
>>>
>>> You are really not helping :)
>>>
>>> What if we decide to only support "tss2 (IBM)"? Would we still need
>>> v1.2?
>>
>>
>> Recent Tss2 project also has TPM 1.2 support now, but it can be
>> compiled out. So, it depends on what you want to have on this level as
>> well.
>>
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/ibmtpm20tss/tss/ci/master/tree/
>>
>> See utils12 directory. If you reject TPM 1.2 altogether there's of
>> course no point in supporting it for anyone.
>>
>>
> Thoughts?

None really. I still do not understand what we will miss if we drop
everything but TPM v2.0. Like, what actual distro does not have v2.0
today and we want to support, or there is something better in v1.2 which
is missing in v2.0, practical stuff like this. Thanks,


-- 
Alexey