On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:21:52AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 5/11/20 7:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 08:26:53AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> >
> > On 5/11/20 6:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22:57AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > It's a different guest side interface, the H_TPM_COMM hypercall
> > > > instead of the other PAPR TPM interface. To which "why?"
is a very
> > > > good question, but it's there now, so there's not much we can
do about
> > > > it.
> > > That's ok. Even though its a different guest interface, it is still
> > > conceptually a TPM device at a high level, so we should be reusing
> > > the existing <tpm> device type. At most we should add a new backend
> > > type
> > I think adding a new backend type is sensible. Re-using the passthrough type
> > and making the differentiation with 'model', for a device that
doesn't
> > operate exactly as a regular vTPM but can coexist with other vTPM devices,
> > will make for a lot of IFs in the code.
> Currently libvirt only allows a single <tpm>, but we can trivially
> lift that restriction to allow multiple if desired too.
QEMU won't accept multiple TIS or CRB devices, though.
The commit message says you can do 2 at a time:
"Although redundant, there is currently no technical
limitation for a guest to assign both a vTPM and a TPM Proxy at the
same time."
is that text not accurate ?
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|