From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E922C433EF for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 00:31:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A2D8384C; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 01:30:58 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="lUjcaBli"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 1E64683879; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 01:30:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CC42836BE for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 01:30:52 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id m22so12841248pfk.6 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:30:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=2luCjojeqKb1zoQqbt/T0PAtS7V3urKVU0Uvlt8omo8=; b=lUjcaBliuYZdy/gejfef82HQF1l7Sb1s4feuO/w73DANm8q2RsYDqjJfx9Lq8iqe0z VwP67pLq8eeYgnNFmKOjVfYziRhNEH1fsXP+nwVFzK82c7h1RQBy1351qj3rDBfrG46Q Y+w3xPdpbLGGpghH4mAA5LgCBpR1PFn0IhKICwdaVZYwPsf1hsfpkG8cDft29zGacx3z 66HWUiTvmXxHymDRrH/RqCHDv+qKk50EHozk3Hd+04ldRf5T1WkSwqVaU1uKybbCFOkH ORgp1KwZXZ2QNejlj3TuXr477zQkDj35rEqSWMU2N0Cn+kmIaE2k8sSfCwFxejQz6YWC aTDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to; bh=2luCjojeqKb1zoQqbt/T0PAtS7V3urKVU0Uvlt8omo8=; b=af/VcVMNRLGTyRzGldavH7fR2Ed+RDdCiVaAYHPOtRrc4BIK98++LVtRuT/hd7XW+A CUDqHeCMYcCHyYX/aNNIlSDeTcfbb6I3sZwerEG33/4OXmE9d7IHO5/Elv9VxnK8rSC9 gvskgqnt7Oar0HqHIdPqZxlH0kNUS2YLJ55IjtqgnmOezBzgqr1O5u2pKA/qGQf6vV/c fwwUEwzqahSoKsfaj7WPUSgsvZ/6RbAEHQ2fVdAGYGtlEW1QKHl4qRHhDpPANejhJyi8 w+Bxk8awls7s8ArTQyFBdT9SJYZE5MS6gLDHKckJmMeZUC23/MBZ/Yd9bvfg4TLesRIM acdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530U417tJGEi8MG9zfiE/nrZ3qMyN/0J7SV8aaKJXmPNxsrEOFNf uThYAwfJbStEiy8b+EINacHvMQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztGsnD4tZDF8lJYFSpdzyHjgWWjmwEGJZFWKGVIW1Xm83iiyw5uNclfO4av9FtKIXRlGAq/Q== X-Received: by 2002:a63:6c43:: with SMTP id h64mr1377892pgc.120.1644885050246; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:30:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from laputa ([2400:4050:c3e1:100:8c2b:8626:fa89:9840]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id np11sm15770861pjb.25.2022.02.14.16.30.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:30:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:30:46 +0900 From: AKASHI Takahiro To: Ilias Apalodimas Cc: xypron.glpk@gmx.de, u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] test/py: efi_secboot: adjust secure boot tests to code changes Message-ID: <20220215003046.GA38476@laputa> Mail-Followup-To: AKASHI Takahiro , Ilias Apalodimas , xypron.glpk@gmx.de, u-boot@lists.denx.de References: <20220211073750.733348-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> <20220211073750.733348-2-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> <20220214015008.GD39639@laputa> <20220214063606.GH39639@laputa> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.5 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 03:36:06PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:18:03AM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:50:08AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > > Ilias, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 09:37:50AM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > > > The previous patch is changing U-Boot's behavior wrt certificate based > > > > > binary authentication. Specifically an image who's digest of a > > > > > certificate is found in dbx is now rejected. Fix the test accordingly > > > > > and add another one testing signatures in reverse order > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas > > > > > --- > > > > > changes since RFC: > > > > > - Added another test cases checking signature hashes in reverse order > > > > > test/py/tests/test_efi_secboot/test_signed.py | 30 +++++++++++++++++-- > > > > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_efi_secboot/test_signed.py b/test/py/tests/test_efi_secboot/test_signed.py > > > > > index 0aee34479f55..cc9396a11d48 100644 > > > > > --- a/test/py/tests/test_efi_secboot/test_signed.py > > > > > +++ b/test/py/tests/test_efi_secboot/test_signed.py > > > > > @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ class TestEfiSignedImage(object): > > > > > assert 'Hello, world!' in ''.join(output) > > > > > > > > > > with u_boot_console.log.section('Test Case 5c'): > > > > > - # Test Case 5c, not rejected if one of signatures (digest of > > > > > + # Test Case 5c, rejected if one of signatures (digest of > > > > > # certificate) is revoked > > > > > output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([ > > > > > 'fatload host 0:1 4000000 dbx_hash.auth', > > > > > @@ -195,7 +195,8 @@ class TestEfiSignedImage(object): > > > > > output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([ > > > > > 'efidebug boot next 1', > > > > > 'efidebug test bootmgr']) > > > > > - assert 'Hello, world!' in ''.join(output) > > > > > + assert '\'HELLO\' failed' in ''.join(output) > > > > > + assert 'efi_start_image() returned: 26' in ''.join(output) > > > > > > > > > > with u_boot_console.log.section('Test Case 5d'): > > > > > # Test Case 5d, rejected if both of signatures are revoked > > > > > @@ -209,6 +210,31 @@ class TestEfiSignedImage(object): > > > > > assert '\'HELLO\' failed' in ''.join(output) > > > > > assert 'efi_start_image() returned: 26' in ''.join(output) > > > > > > > > > > + # Try rejection in reverse order. > > > > > > > > "Reverse order" of what? > > > > > > Of the test right above > > > > Please specify the signature database, I guess "dbx"? > > > > > > > > > > > + u_boot_console.restart_uboot() > > > > > > > > I don't think we need 'restart' here. > > > > I added it in each test function (not test case), IIRC, because we didn't > > > > have file-based non-volatile variables at that time. > > > > > > You do. dbx already holds dbx_hash.auth and dbx1_hash.auth (in that order) at > > > that point. The point is cleaning up dbx and testing against dbx1_hash. > > > > Why not simply overwrite "dbx" variable? > > Without "-a", "env set -e" does it if it is properly signed with KEK. > > > > I am not sure you've understood the bug yet. If I did that, db's 1sts > entry would still be there. The whole point is insert dbx1_hash first. I think that I understand your intension. You meant "db's 1st entry" -> "dbx's 1st entry" in above sentence. Right? # That is why, in my previous comment, I asked you to specify the test case number and the signature database's name explicitly in a comment to avoid any ambiguity. When you said "in a reversed order" in your commit, I expected that either 1.the image(helloworld.efi) has two signatures in a reversed order, or (You hinted this possibility in our chat yesterday.) 2."db" has "db1.auth" and "db.auth" in this order, or 3."dbx" has "dbx_hash1.auth" and "dbx_hash.auth" in this order in this context, but your change didn't do neither. You intended (3). Right? > The > easiest way to do this is on an empty database, instead of starting > overwriting and cleaning variables. Why is rebooting even a problem? If "dbx" is a matter, the easiest way is to simply overwrite that variable. (Apparently we don't need any cleanup.) > > > > > > > > > > + with u_boot_console.log.section('Test Case 5e'): > > > > > + # Test Case 5e, authenticated even if only one of signatures > > > > > + # is verified. Same as before but reject dbx_hash1.auth only > > > > > > > > Please specify what test case "before" means. > > > > > > The test that run right before that > > > > Please add a particular test case number to avoid any ambiguity. > > I believe that a test case description should be easy enough to understand > > and convey no ambiguity especially if there is some subtle difference > > between cases. > > This is exactly the test case right above with dbx1_auth inserted first. I > think it's fine under the current test. See my comment above. > > > > > > > > > > > > + output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([ > > > > > + 'host bind 0 %s' % disk_img, > > > > > + 'fatload host 0:1 4000000 db.auth', > > > > > + 'setenv -e -nv -bs -rt -at -i 4000000:$filesize db', > > > > > + 'fatload host 0:1 4000000 KEK.auth', > > > > > + 'setenv -e -nv -bs -rt -at -i 4000000:$filesize KEK', > > > > > + 'fatload host 0:1 4000000 PK.auth', > > > > > + 'setenv -e -nv -bs -rt -at -i 4000000:$filesize PK', > > > > > + 'fatload host 0:1 4000000 db1.auth', > > > > > + 'setenv -e -nv -bs -rt -at -a -i 4000000:$filesize db', > > > > > + 'fatload host 0:1 4000000 dbx_hash1.auth', > > > > > + 'setenv -e -nv -bs -rt -at -i 4000000:$filesize dbx']) > > > > > > > > Now "db" has db.auth and db1.auth in this order and > > > > 'dbx" has dbx_hash1.auth. > > > > Is this what you intend to test? > > > > > > Yes. The patchset solved 2 bugs. One was not rejecting the image when a > > > single dbx entry was found. The second was that depending on the order the > > > image was signed and the keys inserted into dbx, the code could reject or > > > accept the image. > > > > Which part of "dbx" (or "db"?) is in a reverse order? > > the first tests add dbx_hash -> dbx1_hash, while the second purges the dbx > database and adds dbx1_hash to test against. See my comment above. -Takahiro Akashi > Regards > /Ilias > > > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > > > > > > > > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > > > > > > + assert 'Failed to set EFI variable' not in ''.join(output) > > > > > + output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([ > > > > > + 'efidebug boot add -b 1 HELLO host 0:1 /helloworld.efi.signed_2sigs -s ""', > > > > > + 'efidebug boot next 1', > > > > > + 'efidebug test bootmgr']) > > > > > + assert '\'HELLO\' failed' in ''.join(output) > > > > > + assert 'efi_start_image() returned: 26' in ''.join(output) > > > > > + > > > > > def test_efi_signed_image_auth6(self, u_boot_console, efi_boot_env): > > > > > """ > > > > > Test Case 6 - using digest of signed image in database > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.32.0 > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > /Ilias