On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 09:23 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 10:02:05PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 17:26 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > I can see the argument about it making QEMU easier to use, and
> > > those
> > > who care about securit
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 10:02:05PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 17:26 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > I can see the argument about it making QEMU easier to use, and those
> > who care about security aren't forced to use this new feature. It
> > none the less has a cost on
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 17:26 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> I can see the argument about it making QEMU easier to use, and those
> who care about security aren't forced to use this new feature. It
> none the less has a cost on maintainers and existance of these
> features does reflect on QEMU's
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 06:11:43PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Hello!
>
> When Amarnath proposed the initial patch set for interacting with swtpm
> without relying on CUSE, letting QEMU invoke swtpm was part of the
> patch series. When using some virtual machine management framework like
> virt-
Hello!
When Amarnath proposed the initial patch set for interacting with swtpm
without relying on CUSE, letting QEMU invoke swtpm was part of the
patch series. When using some virtual machine management framework like
virt-manager that might not be necessary. But our goal was to use
QEMU+swtpm to
