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
next prev 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