public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chao Fan <fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com" <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
	Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/boot/KASLR: exclude EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_{CODE|DATA} from KASLR's choice
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:04:46 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170706100446.GC26868@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170706083106.GA21796@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:31:07AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>Hi Baoquan, everyone,
>
>I'm also interested in KASLR/EFI related issue (but not the same issue
>with yours, so I separated the thread.)
>
>This patch is based on Baoquan's recent patches[1], adding more code
>on the new function process_efi_entry().
>If it's OK, could you queue this onto your tree/series?
>
>[1] "[PATCH v3 0/2] x86/boot/KASLR: Restrict kernel to be randomized"
>    https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/5/98
>
>Thanks,
>Naoya Horiguchi
>---
>From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
>Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:40:52 +0900
>Subject: [PATCH] x86/boot/KASLR: exclude EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_{CODE|DATA} from
> KASLR's choice
>
>KASLR chooses kernel location from E820_TYPE_RAM regions by walking over
>e820 entries now. E820_TYPE_RAM includes EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE and
>EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA, so those regions can be the target. According to
>UEFI spec, all memory regions marked as EfiBootServicesCode and
>EfiBootServicesData are available for free memory after the first call
>of ExitBootServices(). So such regions should be usable for kernel on
>spec basis.
>
>In x86, however, we have some workaround for broken firmware, where we
>keep such regions reserved until SetVirtualAddressMap() is done.
>See the following code in should_map_region():
>
>	static bool should_map_region(efi_memory_desc_t *md)
>	{
>		...
>		/*
>		 * Map boot services regions as a workaround for buggy
>		 * firmware that accesses them even when they shouldn't.
>		 *
>		 * See efi_{reserve,free}_boot_services().
>		 */
>		if (md->type == EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE ||
>			md->type == EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA)
>				return false;
>
>This workaround suppressed a boot crash, but potential issues still
>remain because no one prevents the regions from overlapping with kernel
>image by KASLR.
>
>So let's make sure that EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_{CODE|DATA} regions are never
>chosen as kernel memory for the workaround to work fine.
>
>Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
>---
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
>index 94f08fd375ae..f43fed0441a6 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
>@@ -563,7 +563,8 @@ static void process_mem_region(struct mem_vector *entry,
> /* Marks if efi mirror regions have been found and handled. */
> static bool efi_mirror_found;
> 
>-static void process_efi_entry(unsigned long minimum, unsigned long image_size)
>+/* Returns true if we really enter efi memmap walk, otherwise returns false. */
>+static bool process_efi_entry(unsigned long minimum, unsigned long image_size)
> {
> 	struct efi_info *e = &boot_params->efi_info;
> 	struct mem_vector region;
>@@ -577,13 +578,13 @@ static void process_efi_entry(unsigned long minimum, unsigned long image_size)
> 	signature = (char *)&boot_params->efi_info.efi_loader_signature;
> 	if (strncmp(signature, EFI32_LOADER_SIGNATURE, 4) &&
> 	    strncmp(signature, EFI64_LOADER_SIGNATURE, 4))
>-		return;
>+		return false;
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> 	/* Can't handle data above 4GB at this time */
> 	if (e->efi_memmap_hi) {
> 		warn("Memory map is above 4GB, EFI should be disabled.\n");
>-		return;
>+		return false;
> 	}
> 	pmap =  e->efi_memmap;
> #else
>@@ -593,13 +594,36 @@ static void process_efi_entry(unsigned long minimum, unsigned long image_size)
> 	nr_desc = e->efi_memmap_size / e->efi_memdesc_size;
> 	for (i = 0; i < nr_desc; i++) {
> 		md = (efi_memory_desc_t *)(pmap + (i * e->efi_memdesc_size));
>-		if (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_MORE_RELIABLE) {
>-			region.start = md->phys_addr;
>-			region.size = md->num_pages << EFI_PAGE_SHIFT;
>-			process_mem_region(&region, minimum, image_size);
>+		if (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_MORE_RELIABLE)
> 			efi_mirror_found = true;
>+	}

Hi Horiguchi-san,

Sorry for one more suggestion,
How about add:
	if (!efi_mirror_found)
		return false;
at this place, between the two cycles.

Because if there are no mirror regions found, I think we can return
directly and go to walk the e820 entries.
I don't know whether my understanding is right.

Thanks,
Chao Fan

>+
>+	for (i = 0; i < nr_desc; i++) {
>+		md = (efi_memory_desc_t *)(pmap + (i * e->efi_memdesc_size));
>+
>+		/*
>+		 * EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_{CODE|DATA} are avoided because boot
>+		 * services regions could be accessed after ExitBootServices()
>+		 * due to the workaround for buggy firmware.
>+		 */
>+		if (!(md->type == EFI_LOADER_CODE ||
>+		      md->type == EFI_LOADER_DATA ||
>+		      md->type == EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY))
>+			continue;
>+
>+		if (efi_mirror_found &&
>+		    !(md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_MORE_RELIABLE))
>+			continue;
>+
>+		region.start = md->phys_addr;
>+		region.size = md->num_pages << EFI_PAGE_SHIFT;
>+		process_mem_region(&region, minimum, image_size);
>+		if (slot_area_index == MAX_SLOT_AREA) {
>+			debug_putstr("Aborted EFI scan (slot_areas full)!\n");
>+			break;
> 		}
> 	}
>+	return true;
> }
> 
> static void process_e820_entry(unsigned long minimum, unsigned long image_size)
>@@ -637,8 +661,7 @@ static unsigned long find_random_phys_addr(unsigned long minimum,
> 	minimum = ALIGN(minimum, CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN);
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_EFI
>-	process_efi_entry(minimum, image_size);
>-	if (efi_mirror_found)
>+	if (process_efi_entry(minimum, image_size))
> 		return slots_fetch_random();
> #endif
> 
>-- 
>2.7.4
>
>
>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-07-06 10:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-07-06  8:31 [PATCH] x86/boot/KASLR: exclude EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_{CODE|DATA} from KASLR's choice Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-06  9:13 ` Chao Fan
2017-07-06  9:22   ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-06  9:36     ` Chao Fan
2017-07-06  9:18 ` Baoquan He
2017-07-06  9:36   ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-06 10:04 ` Chao Fan [this message]
2017-07-06 10:20   ` Chao Fan
2017-07-06 14:57 ` Matt Fleming
2017-07-07  3:07   ` Baoquan He
2017-07-07  6:11     ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-07 10:58       ` Matt Fleming
2017-07-10  5:47         ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-10  5:51           ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-24 13:17             ` Matt Fleming
2017-07-25  6:17               ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-10  5:51           ` [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/efi: clean up dead code around efi_reserve_boot_services() Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-24 13:20             ` Matt Fleming
2017-07-26  0:12               ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-26  1:13                 ` Baoquan He
2017-07-26  1:34                   ` Baoquan He
2017-07-28  6:48                     ` [PATCH] x86/boot: check overlap between kernel and EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_* Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-29 10:04                       ` kbuild test robot
2017-07-29 13:01                       ` kbuild test robot
2017-07-29 13:01                       ` [RFC PATCH] x86/boot: efi_kernel_boot_services_overlap can be static kbuild test robot
2017-08-23  8:24                       ` [PATCH] x86/boot: check overlap between kernel and EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_* Baoquan He
2017-07-07 10:56     ` [PATCH] x86/boot/KASLR: exclude EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_{CODE|DATA} from KASLR's choice Matt Fleming
2017-07-09 10:44       ` Baoquan He
2017-07-09 14:27         ` Baoquan He
2017-07-07  7:22 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] " Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-07  7:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/efi: clean up dead code around efi_reserve_boot_services() Naoya Horiguchi

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=20170706100446.GC26868@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thgarnie@google.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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