On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:06:23AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:29:43PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/11/20 8:50 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/11/20 8:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:29:43PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>
>
> On 5/11/20 8:50 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/11/20 8:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 08:26:53AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:51:33PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>
>
> On 5/12/20 1:44 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:21:40PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/12/20 12:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020
On 5/12/20 1:44 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:21:40PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 5/12/20 12:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
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 1
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 01:21:40PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>
>
> On 5/12/20 12:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > 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, Da
On 5/11/20 8:50 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 5/11/20 8:28 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:
[...]
[
On 5/12/20 12:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
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
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, Da
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 hyper
On 5/11/20 8:28 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 h
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 P
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
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:22:57AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:30:09PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > On 5/8/20 8:06 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > > QEMU 4.1.0 introduced a new device type called TPM Proxy, currently
> > > implemented by PPC64 guests via a new
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:30:09PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 5/8/20 8:06 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > QEMU 4.1.0 introduced a new device type called TPM Proxy, currently
> > implemented by PPC64 guests via a new virtual device called
> > 'spapr-tpm-proxy' (see QEMU 0fb6bd073230 for
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:43:20PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 5/8/20 8:06 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > QEMU 4.1.0 introduced a new device type called TPM Proxy, currently
> > implemented by PPC64 guests via a new virtual device called
> > 'spapr-tpm-proxy' (see QEMU 0fb6bd073230 for
On 5/8/20 8:06 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
QEMU 4.1.0 introduced a new device type called TPM Proxy, currently
implemented by PPC64 guests via a new virtual device called
'spapr-tpm-proxy' (see QEMU 0fb6bd073230 for more info).
The TPM Proxy device interacts with a TPM Resource Manager, a
On 5/8/20 8:06 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
QEMU 4.1.0 introduced a new device type called TPM Proxy, currently
implemented by PPC64 guests via a new virtual device called
'spapr-tpm-proxy' (see QEMU 0fb6bd073230 for more info).
The TPM Proxy device interacts with a TPM Resource Manager, a
QEMU 4.1.0 introduced a new device type called TPM Proxy, currently
implemented by PPC64 guests via a new virtual device called
'spapr-tpm-proxy' (see QEMU 0fb6bd073230 for more info).
The TPM Proxy device interacts with a TPM Resource Manager, a host
device capable of multiplexing the host TPM wi
18 matches
Mail list logo