Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/4] Provide support for the CUSE TPM

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 06:32:19PM +0000, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:20 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> >
> > > You're also tieing the code
> > > into the QEMU release cycle, again for no tangible benefit.
> >
> > No need for ABI stability would be the benefit.
> >
> 
> We are talking about the control channel ABI (the data channel is using TCG
> defined command streams afaict - don't remember what it is called)
> 
> 
> >
> > > Conceptually
> > > swtpm does not depend on, or require, QEMU to be useful - it can have
> > > other non-QEMU consumers - bundling with QEMU is not helpful there.
> >
> > Maybe it could but it isn't.
> >
> 
> Right, it would be reasonable to have qemu provide it's own private "swtpm"
> (linking with libtpms, doing most of the job), that way it wouldn't have to
> rely on a stable ABI (as long as the process isn't shared across different
> qemu versions, which should be quite easy to achieve)

I think we need to expect to have a stable ABI no matter what. During
upgrade cycles, it is desirable to be able to upgrade the swtpm process
assocatied with a running VM. Whether this is done by restarting the
process & having QEMU reconnect, or by re-exec'ing swtpm and keeping the
FD open, you still end up with newer swtpm talking to an older QEMU. Or
conversely you might have setup swtpm processes to populate a number of
CUSE devices, and then later launch QEMU binaries to connect to them - at
which point there's no guarantee the QEMU version hasn't been upgraded -
or the user could have requested a custom QEMU binary to virt-install,
etc.


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-    http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|