linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: glin@suse.com (Gary Lin)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC v3 PATCH 0/2] Introduce Security Version to EFI Stub
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:03:02 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171208100302.an3bi3baewifcakc@GaryWorkstation> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171207142657.52e1363a@alans-desktop>

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:26:57PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue,  5 Dec 2017 18:01:46 +0800
> Gary Lin <glin@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> > The series of patches introduce Security Version to EFI stub.
> > 
> > Security Version is a monotonically increasing number and designed to
> > prevent the user from loading an insecure kernel accidentally. The
> > bootloader maintains a list of security versions corresponding to
> > different distributions. After fixing a critical vulnerability, the
> > distribution kernel maintainer bumps the "version", and the bootloader
> > updates the list automatically. 
> 
> This seems a mindbogglingly complicated way to implement something you
> could do with a trivial script in the package that updates the list of
> iffy kernels and when generating the new grub.conf puts them in a menu
> of 'old insecure' kernels.
> 
Ya, a menu for those kernels is also a kind of warning to the users.
Thanks for pointing the direction.

> Why do you even need this in the EFI stub ?
> 
For 2 reasons.

1. We want the version number being unalterable. In a system with UEFI
   Secure Boot, the signature appended to the kernel guarantees that the
   version number is genuine.

2. For the cross-architecture support. Since the version number could be
   anywhere in the image file, we need at least a offset to point to the
   version number. That's why I choose the resource section/table in the
   EFI header. It exists as long as the EFI stub exists. The design of
   the directory allows different data stored separately.

If there is a better place for the version number, I'd be glad to adopt
it.

> What happens if you want to invalidate an old kernel but not push a new
> one ? Today if you've got a package that maintains the list of 'iffy'
> kernels you can push a tiny package, under your scheme you've got to push
> new kernels which is an un-necessary and high risk OS change.
> 
The idea is that the security version only bumps only when it's really
necessary. For example, the new kernel fixes a severe bug that invalidates
the signature check of the modules. Or, the distro makes an official
release and would like to obsolete the alpha/beta/RC kernel. Anyway, it
depends on the distro policy.

Actually, our main target is only for the enterprise server, and the
kernel update path is relatively simple. Since it may bring some
confusion in a multi-boot system, we are currently not planning to
enable SV for the community distro, i.e. openSUSE.

Thanks,

Gary Lin

      reply	other threads:[~2017-12-08 10:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-05 10:01 [RFC v3 PATCH 0/2] Introduce Security Version to EFI Stub Gary Lin
2017-12-05 10:01 ` [RFC v3 PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Introduce Security Version to x86 Gary Lin
2017-12-05 10:01 ` [RFC v3 PATCH 2/2] arm64/efi: Introduce Security Version to ARM64 Gary Lin
2017-12-05 21:14 ` [RFC v3 PATCH 0/2] Introduce Security Version to EFI Stub Josh Boyer
2017-12-06  3:24   ` Gary Lin
2017-12-06 18:37     ` Ingo Molnar
2017-12-07  1:59       ` Gary Lin
2017-12-07  6:09         ` Ingo Molnar
2017-12-07  7:52           ` Gary Lin
2017-12-07  8:18             ` Ingo Molnar
2017-12-07 10:27               ` Gary Lin
2017-12-07 10:35                 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-12-08  9:00                   ` Gary Lin
2017-12-07 14:26 ` Alan Cox
2017-12-08 10:03   ` Gary Lin [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171208100302.an3bi3baewifcakc@GaryWorkstation \
    --to=glin@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).