Re: [PATCH 3/3] testutilsqemu: Fake TPM versions

On 8/1/22 18:10, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> +++ b/tests/testutilsqemu.c >> @@ -150,12 +150,13 @@ bool >> virTPMSwtpmSetupCapsGet(virTPMSwtpmSetupFeature cap) >> { >> switch (cap) { >> + case VIR_TPM_SWTPM_SETUP_FEATURE_TPM_1_2: >> + case VIR_TPM_SWTPM_SETUP_FEATURE_TPM_2_0: >> + return true; >> case VIR_TPM_SWTPM_SETUP_FEATURE_CMDARG_PWDFILE_FD: >> case VIR_TPM_SWTPM_SETUP_FEATURE_CMDARG_CREATE_CONFIG_FILES: >> case VIR_TPM_SWTPM_SETUP_FEATURE_TPM12_NOT_NEED_ROOT: >> case VIR_TPM_SWTPM_SETUP_FEATURE_CMDARG_RECONFIGURE_PCR_BANKS: >> - case VIR_TPM_SWTPM_SETUP_FEATURE_TPM_1_2: >> - case VIR_TPM_SWTPM_SETUP_FEATURE_TPM_2_0: >> case VIR_TPM_SWTPM_SETUP_FEATURE_LAST: >> break; >> } > > So our test suite will work against a mocked TPM that supports a very > small set of hardcoded capabilities. Would it make sense to extend > this so that it's possible to control things as the test case level, > so that we can have coverage for things like e.g. trying to use TPM > 1.2 when the swtpm binary only supports TPM 2.0? Good point. We could have an environment variable that, if set, would make this function return just a subset of TPM versions. And then, when we want to test scenario you suggest we could do the following: setenv("VIR_TEST_MOCK_FAKE_TPM_VERSION", "1.2"); DO_TEST_FAILURE("guest-tpm-2.0"); unsetenv("VIR_TEST_MOCK_FAKE_TPM_VERSION"); Alternatively, we can modify the DO_TEST_* macro so that it accepts TPM version and sets the ENV var accordingly, but I'd rather not do that, because it's not very extensible.

> That'd all be follow-up work, of course. Your change is good to have > as is :) In fact, I can just not merge this patch and send v2 of this patch that implements the idea from above. I'll push the other two though, because they fix the issue.