public inbox for u-boot@lists.denx.de
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: Fit images and EFI_LOAD_FILE2_PROTOCOL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 09:33:01 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201005063301.GA183486@apalos.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXGkx0SPd5pPcoSz6bS1QZSgWU2868_D4+9dVePZEovR9Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 at 13:16, Fran?ois Ozog <francois.ozog@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> >> that looks super interesting.
[...]
> >> I propose something (in the latest desk preparing oct 14th) similar
> >> except the an efi application boots the FIT.
> >> I view UEFI as booting a PE coff and pass a set of config tables. Today
> >> we have DTB, we could just add Initrd (you command line). Bootefi would be
> >> responsible to valide the containing FIT before pushing initrd (and
> >> dTB?)into the table. It would be the responsibility of the efi stub to get
> >> the initrd from the config table (GUID to be defined).
> >>
> > the memory attributes of the initrd config table should be such that it
> > can be recovered for normal use. That may be tricky though.
> >
> 
> The purpose of the EFI_FILE_LOAD2_PROTOCOL based initrd loading mechanism
> is to allow the EFI stub (which is tightly coupled to the kernel
> arch/version/etc) to allocate the memory for the initrd, and pass it into
> the LoadFile2() request, using whichever policy it wants to adhere to for
> alignment, offset and/or vicinity of the kernel image. It also ensures that
> any measurement performed by the bootloader for attestation or
> authentication can be delayed to the point where the booting kernel assumes
> ownership of the initrd contents, preventing potential TOCTOU issues where
> intermediate boot stages are involved (shim+grub etc)
> 
> Creating an initrd config table would mean that the bootloader decides
> where to load the initrd in memory, and only passes the address and size.
> This is exactly what we wanted to avoid, because now, the bootloader has to
> know all these different rules that vary between kernel version,
> configurations and architectures.
> 
> For uboot's implementation of FIT based EFI_FILE_LOAD2_PROTOCOL, this might
> mean that the initrd is loaded into memory first, and copied to another
> location (and [re-]authenticated) when LoadFile2() is invoked. I don't
> think this is a problem in the general case, but we might think about ways
> to avoid this if this turns out to be a problem for memory constrained
> devices with huge initrds.

+1 
That sounds like the easiest and sanest path at the moment. 
I think that standardizing a Linux construct (initramfs) authentication from a
firmware doesn't make too much sense.
I haven't seen FIT images in detail (so shout if I am horribly wrong), but changing 
lib/efi_loader/efi_load_initrd.c to authenticate the FIT image and extract the
initramfs for the kernel seems possible and it's close to what we do today.

Right now u-boot is reading a .config path to determine and load the file, 
something like <device> <partition> <file> i.e mmc 0:1 initrd.cpio.gz. 
Can't we just detect it's a FIT image that contains it, authenticate and extract 
it before passing it on?


Cheers
/Ilias

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-10-05  6:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-03  8:51 Fit images and EFI_LOAD_FILE2_PROTOCOL Heinrich Schuchardt
2020-10-03 11:14 ` François Ozog
2020-10-03 11:16   ` François Ozog
2020-10-03 13:12     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-10-03 16:35       ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2020-10-03 16:59         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-10-05  6:33       ` Ilias Apalodimas [this message]
2020-10-05 14:12       ` François Ozog
2020-10-05 15:25         ` Daniel Thompson
2020-10-05 17:14           ` François Ozog
2020-10-04 23:41 ` Cristian Ciocaltea
2020-10-05 22:37 ` Grant Likely
2020-10-06  4:35   ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2020-10-06  7:20     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-10-06  8:00       ` François Ozog
2020-10-06  8:05         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-10-06 10:13           ` François Ozog
2020-10-06 10:23             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-10-06  9:58         ` Daniel Thompson
2020-10-06 10:38     ` Grant Likely
2020-10-06 12:04       ` François Ozog
2020-10-06 12:36         ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2020-10-06 12:43           ` Grant Likely
2020-10-06 12:52             ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2020-10-06 13:02               ` Grant Likely
2020-10-06 14:22                 ` François Ozog
2020-10-06 14:46                   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-10-06 15:08                     ` François Ozog
2020-10-06 15:32                       ` François Ozog
2020-10-06 17:50                       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-10-06 13:00           ` François Ozog
2020-10-06 12:38         ` Grant Likely
2020-10-06 12:05       ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2020-10-06 12:15         ` François Ozog
2020-10-06 12:41       ` Ilias Apalodimas
2020-10-06 12:46         ` Grant Likely
2020-10-06 13:12           ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2020-10-06 14:09             ` François Ozog

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=20201005063301.GA183486@apalos.home \
    --to=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /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