Zhuoying Cai <[email protected]> writes:

> Introduce a new `boot-certs` machine type option for the s390-ccw-virtio
> machine. This allows users to specify one or more certificate file paths
> or directories to be used during secure boot.
>
> Each entry is specified using the syntax:
>       boot-certs.<index>.path=/path/to/cert.pem
>
> Multiple paths can be specify using array properties:
>       boot-certs.0.path=/path/to/cert.pem,
>       boot-certs.1.path=/path/to/cert-dir,
>       boot-certs.2.path=/path/to/another-dir...

Given we can specifiy a directory containing any number of certificate
files, is the ability to specify multiple paths worth the additional
complexity?

> Signed-off-by: Zhuoying Cai <[email protected]>

[...]

> diff --git a/qapi/machine-s390x.json b/qapi/machine-s390x.json
> index 966dbd61d2..51bf791fe6 100644
> --- a/qapi/machine-s390x.json
> +++ b/qapi/machine-s390x.json
> @@ -119,3 +119,25 @@
>  { 'command': 'query-s390x-cpu-polarization', 'returns': 
> 'CpuPolarizationInfo',
>    'features': [ 'unstable' ]
>  }
> +
> +##
> +# @BootCertificate:
> +#
> +# Boot certificate for secure IPL.
> +#
> +# @path: path to an X.509 certificate file or a directory containing 
> certificate files.
> +#
> +# Since: 10.2
> +##
> +{ 'struct': 'BootCertificate',
> +  'data': {'path': 'str'} }

I'd call this BootCertificates (plural), because it can pull in any
number, not just than one.

> +
> +##
> +# @DummyBootCertificates:
> +#
> +# Not used by QMP; hack to let us use BootCertificateList internally.
> +#
> +# Since: 10.2
> +##
> +{ 'struct': 'DummyBootCertificates',
> +  'data': {'unused-boot-certs': ['BootCertificate'] } }
> diff --git a/qapi/pragma.json b/qapi/pragma.json
> index 023a2ef7bc..66401837ad 100644
> --- a/qapi/pragma.json
> +++ b/qapi/pragma.json
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@
>          'DisplayProtocol',
>          'DriveBackupWrapper',
>          'DummyBlockCoreForceArrays',
> +        'DummyBootCertificates',
>          'DummyForceArrays',
>          'DummyVirtioForceArrays',
>          'HotKeyMod',


Reply via email to