On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 03:53:43PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > On 12/15/22 15:30, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2022-12-15 at 15:22 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > On 12/15/22 15:07, James Bottomley wrote: > > [...] > > > > don't really have much interest in the migration use case, but I > > > > knew it should work like the passthrough case, so that's what I > > > > tested. > > > > > > I think your device needs to block migrations since it doesn't handle > > > all migration scenarios correctly. > > > > Passthrough doesn't block migrations either, presumably because it can > > also be made to work if you know what you're doing. I might not be > > Don't compare it to passthrough, compare it to swtpm. It should > have at least the same features as swtpm or be better, otherwise > I don't see why we need to have the backend device in the upstream > repo.
James has explained multiple times that mssim is a beneficial thing to support, given that it is the reference implementation of TPM2. Requiring the same or greater features than swtpm is an unreasonable thing to demand. With 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 :|