Re: [RFC 2/4] spdm: add spdm storage transport virtual header

[Klaus Jensen]

On Jan 15 02:16, Wilfred Mallawa wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 10:04 +0100, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> > On Jan  7 15:29, Wilfred Mallawa via wrote:
> > > This header contains the transport encoding for an SPDM message
> > > that
> > > uses the SPDM over Storage transport as defined by the DMTF
> > > DSP0286.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Wilfred Mallawa <wilfred.mallawa@wdc.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/system/spdm-socket.h | 12 ++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/system/spdm-socket.h b/include/system/spdm-
> > > socket.h
> > > index 2b7d03f82d..fc007e5b48 100644
> > > --- a/include/system/spdm-socket.h
> > > +++ b/include/system/spdm-socket.h
> > > @@ -88,6 +88,18 @@ bool spdm_socket_send(const int socket, uint32_t
> > > socket_cmd,
> > >   */
> > >  void spdm_socket_close(const int socket, uint32_t transport_type);
> > >  
> > > +/*
> > > + * Defines the transport encoding for SPDM, this information shall
> > > be passed
> > > + * down to the SPDM server, when conforming to the SPDM over
> > > Storage standard
> > > + * as defined by DSP0286.
> > > + */
> > > +typedef struct QEMU_PACKED {
> > > +    uint8_t security_protocol;
> > > +    uint16_t security_protocol_specific;
> > > +    bool inc_512;
> > > +    uint32_t length;
> > > +} StorageSpdmTransportHeader;
> > 
> > Does it make sense to pack a bool? Is this defined by the SPDM server
> > in
> > use? I can't find the definition of this header anywhere.
> > 
> This is essentially a virtual header containing essential storage
> transport data as per DSP0286. For example, this is defined in the
> upstream effort for 
> `libspmd` to add storage binding support [1] and in DSP0286 [2], this
> is defined in section 5.1.1.
> 
> Current implementation of the SPDM server (i.e in `spdm-utils` only one
> to have support for storage), will just pass this header to `libspdm`
> to be decoded. Once decoded by `libspdm`, `spdm-utils`/server will
> contextually check for validity of the message.
> 

OK, understood.

> As for inc_512, it just need to be yes or no, is there a better way to
> represent that here?

It's a byte, right? Then I think using uint8_t is more clear here.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature