Re: [Luv] Results and a few questions

--===============6949393908256273146==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually including the CHIPSEC mailing list this time.
On Mon, 2015-10-26 at 19:51 +0000, Neri, Ricardo wrote:
> +CHIPSEC mailing list
> =

> Hi Jason,
> =

> Thanks for your report.
> =

> On Mon, 2015-10-26 at 12:04 -0700, Jason Barbier wrote:
> > Hey all,
> > I ran LUV-Live and my results are attached as a zip, I sort of was
> > wondering about the errors in the chipsec log though,
> > These were similar errors that I got last week that caused some issues
> > with my clock being reset using version 1.2, the latest RC seems to not
> > do that but It still can not seem to run all the tests.
> > =

> > --
> > WARNING: 'SPIBAR' MMIO BAR definition not found/correct in XML config
> > [pci] reading B/D/F: 0/31/0, offset: 0xF0, value: 0xFED1C001
> > [spi] SPI MMIO base: 0x00000000FED1F800 (assuming below 4GB)
> > [spi] SPI MMIO base: 0x00000000FED1F800 (assuming below 4GB)
> > [-] Traceback (most recent call last):
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec_main.py", line 291, in
> >   run_module
> >     result =3D modx.run( module_argv )
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/module.py", line 69, in
> >   run
> >     result =3D self.get_module_object()
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/module.py", line 101,
> >   in get_module_object
> >     self.mod_obj =3D iref()
> >   File
> >   "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/modules/common/bios_wp.py",
> >   line 51, in __init__
> >     self.spi    =3D SPI( self.cs )
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/hal/spi.py", line 176,
> >   in __init__
> >     self.hsfs_off   =3D int(chipsec.chipset.get_register_def( self.cs,
> >     "HSFS" )['offset'],16)
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/chipset.py", line 467,
> >   in get_register_def
> >     return _cs.Cfg.REGISTERS[ reg_name ]
> > KeyError: 'HSFS'
> > --
> > [-] Traceback (most recent call last):
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec_main.py", line 291, in
> >   run_module
> >     result =3D modx.run( module_argv )
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/module.py", line 80, in
> >   run
> >     result =3D self.mod_obj.run(module_argv)
> >   File
> >   "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/modules/common/spi_desc.py",
> >   line 68, in run
> >     return self.check_flash_access_permissions()
> >   File
> >   "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/modules/common/spi_desc.py",
> >   line 48, in check_flash_access_permissions
> >     frap =3D chipsec.chipset.read_register( self.cs, 'FRAP' )
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/chipset.py", line 470,
> >   in read_register
> >     reg =3D _cs.Cfg.REGISTERS[ reg_name ]
> > KeyError: 'FRAP'
> > =

> > ERROR: Exception occurred during chipsec.modules.common.spi_desc.run():
> > ''FRAP''
> > --
> > [-] Traceback (most recent call last):
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec_main.py", line 291, in
> >   run_module
> >     result =3D modx.run( module_argv )
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/module.py", line 80, in
> >   run
> >     result =3D self.mod_obj.run(module_argv)
> >   File
> >   "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/modules/common/spi_lock.py",
> >   line 59, in run
> >     return self.check_spi_lock()
> >   File
> >   "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/modules/common/spi_lock.py",
> >   line 46, in check_spi_lock
> >     hsfs_reg =3D chipsec.chipset.read_register( self.cs, 'HSFS' )
> >   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/chipsec/chipset.py", line 470,
> >   in read_register
> >     reg =3D _cs.Cfg.REGISTERS[ reg_name ]
> > KeyError: 'HSFS'
> > =

> > ERROR: Exception occurred during chipsec.modules.common.spi_lock.run():
> > ''HSFS''
> > --
> > =

> I added the CHIPSEC mailing list. Perhaps they can give further insight
> on what the problem might be.
> =

> As per LUV, it seems that this exception somehow caused a crash in the
> LUV test manager and it prevented it from running the tests of the
> tests. It seems we need to add some safeguards so that LUV can handle
> these errors more gracefully.
> =

> Thanks and BR,
> Ricardo
> =

> > =

> > _______________________________________________
> > Luv mailing list
> > Luv(a)lists.01.org
> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/luv
> =

> _______________________________________________
> Luv mailing list
> Luv(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/luv



--===============6949393908256273146==--