From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58071) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RATDo-0005uh-Ie for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 17:05:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RATDn-00080s-DE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 17:05:16 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1025) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RATDn-00080o-53 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 17:05:15 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 23:05:32 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20111002210531.GB8072@redhat.com> References: <20110928132255.156431784@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111002113835.GH30747@redhat.com> <4E88C59E.2020209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E88C59E.2020209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V11 0/5] Qemu Trusted Platform Module (TPM) integration List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Berger Cc: anbang.ruan@cs.ox.ac.uk, andreas.niederl@iaik.tugraz.at, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, serge@hallyn.com On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 04:12:14PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 10/02/2011 07:38 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 09:22:55AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > >>The following series of patches adds TPM (Trusted Platform Module) support > >>to Qemu. An emulator for the TIS (TPM Interface Spec) interface is > >>added that provides the basis for accessing a 'backend' implementing the actual > >>TPM functionality. The TIS emulator serves as a 'frontend' enabling for > >>example Linux's TPM TIS (tpm_tis) driver. > >> > >>In this series I am posting a backend implementation that makes use of the > >>host's TPM through a passthrough driver, which on Linux is accessed > >>using /dev/tpm0. > >Looks pretty clean, ACK to patches 1-4. > Thanks. > >The passthrough mode is quite easy to misuse, though most > >of the problem is in the hardware, not on our side. > > > >I'm still trying to think of a good way to warn users > >about the pitfalls with that. Disabling by default in configure, unless > The documentation isn't enough? Let's be frank with ourselves, no one reads documentation. > If it's really needed could I add > another patch on top of the existing V11? Sure. > >explictly required, is certainly one way. > >And/or, let's rename it 'assigned' mode to resemble the name of > >another fragile qemu feature :) Only half joking ... > > > Well, not sure what exactly you mean, but some things seem late > versus closing time... > > Stefan