From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f43.google.com (mail-ej1-f43.google.com [209.85.218.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 065D33BBEB for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 10:58:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726052298; cv=none; b=OWs8z7C0Qkin8uE2T94VlXBFnDri4urEU5nNEq6UXqXDVODdZlZu6F9YcGsiYANfPRAMIRaXpK7VEI/9vwSNZFzlQzVifo6fqfEA68jLTn7r9Q9I8dBJqMQaY9n5PhRkAAvnxEE3MFy4CiSEMIpZHLiYNnDKRwRTDlm/OZDLp8Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726052298; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f3++NS2aJ2ciggrBGynEaInXG7RqQwWJ5yiYpt846HE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=DI1i1MFiNVdX9OzsujpzCs5ToVX5AFLT0f5SbRdiOqPttWjJOXcHtxNPszlIzt59yRbQHxSHM4/yzGOoCDZDDQMmrNNFsKdIA66sizySQIONp7QD5k33N/VxGcsQJcP0vDw8pHxJMexMRdCw70fUUmyOwe+gVDHmr9YORnZLMTQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=ez8cvMHz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.218.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="ez8cvMHz" Received: by mail-ej1-f43.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a83562f9be9so179501966b.0 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 03:58:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1726052295; x=1726657095; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xfRXO8aG7CV7xVz5FI9ItiLuIzkInF12v0gTlp+dl+o=; b=ez8cvMHznEOSsPwfPI0HvCDdQDBCV5gxIMmDueynOXTdF/fJniuYg+f3E/1ryFHYSm jHs4FKl0YugPrZHf337fdKukS+z8mz9jvpNpk/zfttxQiFmq/CeM/AteOn5kpgtnQxFZ yPlqzoahpOsszVg+DXuoMpSTjwpmvBqNFVDQrFRpLbqzEf2v9xjiG2U63ko0hnXKZHSb xt5hHWuLwePzriq+vHRxthCnAotR/I/oTB07tU1SrqT1zKC39nsaqPaxWgaTZCAf/QkK yZD4OTc6ZFbVLXbskERXaxFT4DCKRJFWtdgVOWS3UYx8pJKj3Wm+pNKREH0M+/LEhwSm 9rSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1726052295; x=1726657095; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xfRXO8aG7CV7xVz5FI9ItiLuIzkInF12v0gTlp+dl+o=; b=HA3t2QORyvXNcjEWFcpAEtlRzgtxI03Qp/4UdOQj4/z0oF9Imx0ZYBjqlTFR75x5KK t+RQFKHGaTMxwiocRRMfOtmhlfiaVCZglIO/M6YZNF8pmHncSsHSw8yYSq3eGnm2AMLV YZcFatYBvqfco2fx2EDPZM17C8LJf0dC7jOSJQR+825H5mwanNVkzLatx/MBzrU90CHB ip+gDaTrRAh4WbMLv4AlkWULwaEhf8KZokcX8L1Zxc6BdT4wO8LTatE+GlvnCpgsYGyl /qC133zF+cKetgJEvRJBMRPafh6xd+4UL3rdkTV9xYPiectDUaRWQSfDS5o/1g/A5ym8 9Vew== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVPSIyY57gKC7V1N3kfgTSWgC7+p24+iqXk2F/5Eb3Df3G++lS2W/8+dsIz5KqOO1CQDUpKkzp4ByE=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzUvbHDNnp9CPgUkf4m+M3JDUNe50ENJ5pY5zbxB692jprT1Dyt E6kuZQYSS/bswxPUUvuGX9dTSu/DGRx9U+iGT62gZiZ6jS0265VN X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGLMNPOA93gjLZo+ChcKvIbXVcmDwqywv3Wgapd4ujtL40XzixDcfbg0lCaaCCVF5rVri6aHQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3d87:b0:a8d:60e2:396b with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a9004a98eebmr227622866b.65.1726052294334; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 03:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a03:83e0:1126:4:eb:d0d0:c7fd:c82c? ([2620:10d:c092:500::5:aa41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-a8d25d5491asm596445066b.198.2024.09.11.03.58.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Sep 2024 03:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8d3ec802-4f7e-42be-b757-bc103d039f0b@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:58:13 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: EFI table being corrupted during Kexec To: ardb@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, bhe@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, devel@edk2.groups.io, rppt@kernel.org, gourry@gourry.net, rmikey@meta.com, afish@apple.com, kraxel@redhat.com, "Eric W. Biederman" , Breno Leitao References: <20240910-juicy-festive-sambar-9ad23a@devvm32600> <87ed5rd1qf.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Usama Arif In-Reply-To: <87ed5rd1qf.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 10/09/2024 15:26, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Breno Leitao 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. > Thanks, I have sent a potential fix for this at https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240911104109.1831501-1-usamaarif642@gmail.com/ We can see this issue in kernels going all the way back to 5.12. Up until now it only corrupted the tpm_log version, so it wasn't really an issue. After upgrading production to 6.9, the tpm_log size has started to get corrupted as well. When size was corrupted to a negative value, the memblock_reserve in efi_tpm_eventlog_init is reserving the entire memory available, and the system OOMs at boot time, which is causing a serious issue. It would be good to know if the above patch is an acceptable fix. Thanks! Usama