linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to query EFI facilities

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1358947052.2976.1.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:17:32 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, Tim Gardner <rtg.canonical@...il.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@...onical.com>,
	Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	Corentin Chary <corentincj@...aif.net>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to query EFI
 facilities

On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 07:52 +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 04:16 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 21:12 +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > [...]
> > > From 92e73f936e40a8c6562e47425d434a4e62d2b8e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:42:35 +0000
> > > Subject: [PATCH] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to query EFI facilities
> > > 
> > > Originally 'efi_enabled' indicated whether a kernel was booted from
> > > EFI firmware. Over time its semantics have changed, and it now
> > > indicates whether or not we are booted on an EFI machine with
> > > bit-native firmware, e.g. 64-bit kernel with 64-bit firmware.
> > > 
> > > The immediate motivation for this patch is the bug report at,
> > > 
> > >     https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-cdimage/+bug/1040557
> > > 
> > > which details how running a platform driver on an EFI machine that is
> > > designed to run under BIOS can cause the machine to become
> > > bricked. Also, the following report,
> > > 
> > >     https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47121
> > > 
> > > details how running said driver can also cause Machine Check
> > > Exceptions. Drivers need a new means of detecting whether they're
> > > running on an EFI machine, as sadly the expression,
> > > 
> > >     if (!efi_enabled)
> > > 
> > > hasn't been a sufficient condition for quite some time.
> > [...]
> > 
> > This patch maps the old efi_enabled flag to efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT).  Your
> > second patch adds a test for efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT) to the samsung-laptop
> > driver.  So the samsung-laptop driver could be fixed by adding a check
> > for the old flag; it doesn't depend on the addition of new flags at all.
> > The changes elsewhere may well be important, but the cited motivation
> > here just doesn't make sense.
> 
> If we instead check for the old flag then the samsung-laptop driver
> would run if booting a 32-bit kernel with 64-bit EFI firmware, or vice
> versa, because efi_enabled == 0 in that case.
> 
> It's not sufficient to just check the old flag, the samsung-laptop
> driver really can't be allowed to run at all if booting from EFI, and
> the old flag doesn't provide us with that guarantee.

OK, yes, I misread this.  Sorry to waste your time.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Q.  Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy?
A.  I don't know and I couldn't care less.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)