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 670B8C433EF for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 06:50:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C6C82FCA; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 07:50:18 +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="K1Phe5UJ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id A52CB8169D; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 07:50:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) (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 6961182FCA for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 07:50:11 +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=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id qx21so2343033ejb.13 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:50:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=bjg7NVZ/4dv3+LMzKE2am663qZZzCDumehy39w+kuGk=; b=K1Phe5UJt3hNbA2x/n3j+jKkvPtAvQn44RTppaNAZFebnzHSwliHwQHvxRpcx9S8bs uMfud0zgn9PIfaBYs366RqbC84YK/MnOizd6C83+bNW5Rnmf3q7s+ZT5jbhZdhJSrv1+ ns0DsxNxPUSbloY1CkdbAJFVZNV7QXd/wfpT2FhaiXAo3OCmoV/dCMJAZt5f5L+73ixX s2sTXngn5T3tdztakqKD+yKSSyrYdB6qBu/3DOvLVhabgFMUuaEPUxy9Ie21dSQNP9qE 2nNeKhB5xtRE8l6lsNXpaMQ4YBs01qWqYzDwhEiE3EQUXqlKPTIeuiIlyWsy2rVtpOZB MeSQ== 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:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=bjg7NVZ/4dv3+LMzKE2am663qZZzCDumehy39w+kuGk=; b=qwosDSEraNo0Bwf8fE2OkuRiBMw+SZKoX9jWTWJv50U2UmSW7jNOABo336ukP2KZ7C fORyYquWE9w+yrnOMCrR4xslHL23cIg36hECibj2RLuYHd9ZJNMLBN+RswHxJ7I+X6Wo elkKEiMOzOQyonOIQJVvpfhBGLSckkeX+wFIlTsP7789tPwaRP1eLs8RrlJAkf2XhKkb ITnqTQWq0mffYO0CntGaKj5pfE4nJwmNLnOs2dKbUKoSvFXEjwPjz0WjJ9Y7ZUR5WkAm ijd6NkoCUMoKqeK7+J7CvEE2MuHwRrlIY4KnjCr9Fi7k+6PRvCXmNtgb04CVlQ7qpFWp +HhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532O0KZmsnqpxFlRZzM0k0+5yi6HgBcaQUJnsukHvjCGczfOQrU6 5CDozR+mNajGgPyW8ouVMxc3gSVascnMJg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtDfB70uEo3QzjNBKwLC6KnttPWmVxpxnZ+U94/6QnkepvFhQtn78Q7fPUTiMmAjcB4YVkUQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:74de:: with SMTP id z30mr1795589ejl.217.1644907810960; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:50:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from hades (athedsl-4461669.home.otenet.gr. [94.71.4.85]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id eq19sm12074780edb.36.2022.02.14.22.50.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:50:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:50:08 +0200 From: Ilias Apalodimas To: AKASHI Takahiro , 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: References: <20220211073750.733348-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> <20220211073750.733348-2-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> <20220214015008.GD39639@laputa> <20220214063606.GH39639@laputa> <20220215003046.GA38476@laputa> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220215003046.GA38476@laputa> 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 Akashi-san, > > > > > > > > > > > > + # 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? Yes > > # 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. Ok. I was planning on updating some more tests, so I'll try to spit that up there as well. > > 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? Yes, however inserting dbx_hash.auth right after dbx_hash1.auth didnt work for me. There's something date related which prevents us from adding both of the sha256 hashes of the certs in reverse order. However I think that inserting dbx_hash1.auth is enough for the test purpose. The whole point was to verify the change of the first patch, were a binary gets rejected on ony dbx match. > > > 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.) > Ah sure, I can test that and send a patch along with some more test cases I got in mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > + 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