qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V14 2/7] Add TPM (frontend) hardware interface (


From: Stefan Berger
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V14 2/7] Add TPM (frontend) hardware interface (TPM TIS) to Qemu
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:43:05 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110928 Fedora/3.1.15-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.15

On 02/20/2012 05:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:43:17AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
+/*
+ * Send a TPM request.
+ * Call this with the state_lock held so we can sync with the receive
+ * callback.
+ */
+static void tpm_tis_tpm_send(TPMState *s, uint8_t locty)
+{
+    TPMTISState *tis =&s->s.tis;
+
+    tpm_tis_show_buffer(&tis->loc[locty].w_buffer, "tpm_tis: To TPM");
+
+    s->command_locty = locty;
+    s->cmd_locty     =&tis->loc[locty];
+
+    /* w_offset serves as length indicator for length of data;
+       it's reset when the response comes back */
+    tis->loc[locty].status = TPM_TIS_STATUS_EXECUTION;
+    tis->loc[locty].sts&= ~TPM_TIS_STS_EXPECT;
+
+    s->to_tpm_execute = true;
+    qemu_cond_signal(&s->to_tpm_cond);
+}
What happens IIUC is that frondend sets to_tpm_execute
and signals a condition, and backend clears it
and waits on a condition.

So how about moving all the signalling
and locking out to backend, and have frontend
invoke a callback to signal it?

The whole threading thing then becomes a work-around
for a backend that does not support select,
instead of spilling out into frontend?


How do I get the lock calls (qemu_mutex_lock(&s->state_lock)) out of the frontend? Do you want me to add callbacks to the backend interface for locking (s->be_driver->ops->state_lock(s)) and one for unlocking (s->be_driver->ops->state_unlock(tpm_be)) of the state that really belongs to the front-end (state is 's') and invoke it as shown in parenthesis and still keep s->state_lock around? Ideally the locks would end up being 'nop's' if select() was available, but in the end all backend will need to support that lock.

[The lock protects the common structure so that the thread in the backend can deliver the response to a request while the OS for example polls the hardware interface for its current state.]


   Stefan




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]