From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Cc: ardb@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, bhe@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com,
devel@edk2.groups.io, rppt@kernel.org, usamaarif642@gmail.com,
gourry@gourry.net, rmikey@meta.com
Subject: Re: EFI table being corrupted during Kexec
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 09:26:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ed5rd1qf.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240910-juicy-festive-sambar-9ad23a@devvm32600> (Breno Leitao's message of "Tue, 10 Sep 2024 06:58:44 -0700")
Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> writes:
> We've seen a problem in upstream kernel kexec, where a EFI TPM log event table
> is being overwritten. This problem happen on real machine, as well as in a
> recent EDK2 qemu VM.
>
> Digging deep, the table is being overwritten during kexec, more precisely when
> relocating kernel (relocate_kernel() function).
>
> I've also found that the table is being properly reserved using
> memblock_reserve() early in the boot, and that range gets overwritten later in
> by relocate_kernel(). In other words, kexec is overwriting a memory that was
> previously reserved (as memblock_reserve()).
>
> Usama found that kexec only honours memory reservations from /sys/firmware/memmap
> which comes from e820_table_firmware table.
>
> Looking at the TPM spec, I found the following part:
>
> If the ACPI TPM2 table contains the address and size of the Platform Firmware TCG log,
> firmware “pins” the memory associated with the Platform Firmware TCG log, and reports
> this memory as “Reserved” memory via the INT 15h/E820 interface.
>
>
> From: https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/PC-ClientPlatform_Profile_for_TPM_2p0_Systems_v49_161114_public-review.pdf
>
> I am wondering if that memory region/range should be part of e820 table that is
> passed by EFI firmware to kernel, and if it is not passed (as it is not being
> passed today), then the kernel doesn't need to respect it, and it is free to
> overwrite (as it does today). In other words, this is a firmware bug and not a
> kernel bug.
>
> Am I missing something?
I agree that this appears to be a firmware bug. This memory is reserved
in one location and not in another location.
That said that doesn't mean we can't deal with it in the kernel.
acpi_table_upgrade seems to have hit a similar issue issue and calls
arch_reserve_mem_area to reserve the area in the e820tables.
The last time I looked the e820 tables (in the kernel) are used to store
the efi memory map when available and only use the true e820 data on
older systems.
Which is a long way of say that the e820 table in the kernel last I
looked was the master table, of how the firmware views the memory.
As I recall the memblock allocator is the bootstrap memory allocator
used when bringing up the kernel. So I don't see reserving something
in the memblock allocator as being authoritative as to how the firmware
has setup memory.
I would suggest writing a patch to update whatever is calling
memblock_reserve to also, or perhaps in preference to update the e820
map. If the code is not x86 specific I would suggest using ACPI's
arch_reserve_mem_area call.
If you have a good path to your the folks who write for the computers
where this happens it seems entirely reasonable to report this as a bug
to them as well.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-10 14:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-10 13:58 EFI table being corrupted during Kexec Breno Leitao
2024-09-10 14:26 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2024-09-10 15:13 ` Breno Leitao
2024-09-10 17:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
2024-09-10 15:46 ` Usama Arif
2024-09-10 16:09 ` Breno Leitao
2024-09-10 16:14 ` Gregory Price
2024-09-11 10:58 ` Usama Arif
2024-09-10 15:44 ` [edk2-devel] " Andrew (EFI) Fish
2024-09-11 8:44 ` Gerd Hoffmann
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=87ed5rd1qf.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=devel@edk2.groups.io \
--cc=gourry@gourry.net \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rmikey@meta.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=usamaarif642@gmail.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/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