Change in coreboot[master]: security/tpm/crtm.c: Fix !CONFIG_BOOTBLOCK_IN_CBFS measuring

[Nico Huber (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Christian Walter, Arthur Heymans.
Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/64418 )

Change subject: security/tpm/crtm.c: Fix !CONFIG_BOOTBLOCK_IN_CBFS measuring
......................................................................

Patch Set 1:

(1 comment)

File src/security/tpm/tspi/crtm.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/64418/comment/f0f3416b_3a8479a1 
PS1, Line 74: 	} /* else: TODO: Add SoC specific measurement methods. */
> > Shouldn't we still return an error? or is this merely a best-effort
> > measuring? IOW, should people know that the measuring is incomplete?
>
> I think nothing else ever gets measured if this fails.

How about a warning/error on the console?
> > (TBH, I don't understand self-measuring generally. It wouldn't make a
> > difference if we'd use a pre-computed hash, would it?)
>
> I think this codes dates from when this was not done in bootblock. 
> Self-measuring might be useful if the binary you build != binary loaded, e.g. with APL TXE fixing up FIT. Not sure though...

Reminds me that on APL one can have the TXE measure the bootblock. At
least, AFAIR.