public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
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>,
	"fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com" <fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	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 15:57:27 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170706145727.GB3080@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170706083106.GA21796@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>

On Thu, 06 Jul, at 08:31:07AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> 
> 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;
> +	}
> +
> +	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;

Wouldn't it make more sense to *only* use EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY?

You can't re-use EFI_LOADER_* regions because the kaslr code is run so
early in boot that you've no idea if data the kernel will need is in
those EFI_LOADER_* regions.

For example, we pass struct setup_data objects inside of
EFI_LOADER_DATA regions.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-07-06 14:57 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
2017-07-06 10:20   ` Chao Fan
2017-07-06 14:57 ` Matt Fleming [this message]
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=20170706145727.GB3080@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --to=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.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=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