From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877D9C433E2 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:26:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AB5722208 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:26:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="akKqHXZx" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0AB5722208 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kIvne-0001nz-PO; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:26:18 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kIvne-0001nu-Ai for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:26:18 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: dd429aae-d5c0-4897-9c22-2e2cddf85e46 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id dd429aae-d5c0-4897-9c22-2e2cddf85e46; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:26:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=cantorsusede; t=1600356376; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NVaNXe59J+NL21e1GFQxT5LgaIU4Fc1dBThNybVTuAI=; b=akKqHXZxySUvJvG5/JZtZThl5wseTXXkLzYr8XqSWz3lJjMefkcQZwSFuB2RnV4yhhhmTd t1CCPhN9Ywdva1yZAszgLzGKSmvd45UxAvXCrp3cIxDvxuX/+o//1/l/WdW7RdEGorfmnP H0uytAhpS2ova58NqqBIhXVyMcmog6pHO6R4MMITV6fvFo9C7TgwrydeeJjyyRMXAmGWZN O3TfPPYMEAOM5+SEVO2dlCaaOE5kJUCx6BxG3HYCiXJHGgwHy2poQEEsD0s7vcLrM+qdbX w2fqjZvhiI48ZwnUgMG3B6kKAUvvFjGhI1fqUK74VX+pqFIDfpkOqPYFpklUug== Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5171EAD71; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:26:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] efi: Do not use command line if secure boot is enabled. To: Trammell Hudson Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , "roger.pau@citrix.com" , "andrew.cooper3@citrix.com" , "wl@xen.org" References: <20200914115013.814079-1-hudson@trmm.net> <20200914115013.814079-5-hudson@trmm.net> <3def666c-c5f1-a520-18dc-6c1c61026b57@suse.com> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:26:17 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On 17.09.2020 16:05, Trammell Hudson wrote: > On Thursday, September 17, 2020 8:51 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.09.2020 13:50, Trammell Hudson wrote: >>> If secure boot is enabled, the Xen command line arguments are ignored. >>> If a unified Xen image is used, then the bundled configuration, dom0 >>> kernel, and initrd are prefered over the ones listed in the config file. >>> Unlike the shim based verification, the PE signature on a unified image >>> covers the all of the Xen+config+kernel+initrd modules linked into the >>> unified image. This also ensures that properly configured platforms >>> will measure the entire runtime into the TPM for unsealing secrets or >>> remote attestation. >> >> The command line may also include a part handed on to the Dom0 kernel. >> If the Dom0 kernel image comes from disk, I don't see why that part of >> the command line shouldn't be honored. Similarly, if the config file >> doesn't come from the unified image, I think Xen's command line options >> should also be honored. > > Ignoring the command line and breaking the shim behaviour in a > unified image should be ok; that is an explicit decision by the > system owner to sign and configure the new image (and the shim > is not used in a unified image anyway). > > If we have a way to detect a unified image early enough, then > we can avoid the backwards incompatibility if it is not unified. I was assuming this was easily possible, if necessary as about the first thing we do. If it's not as easy, perhaps something wants adding to make it so? > That would require moving the config parsing to above the relocation > call. I guess I don't understand why this would be. Jan