linux-kernel - Re: GPT detection regression in efi.c from commit 27a7c64

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: <20130913213607.GB8502@ohporter.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:36:10 -0400
From:	Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc:	Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>, Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: GPT detection regression in efi.c from commit 27a7c64

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:26:39PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Matt Porter wrote:
> > On 09/13/2013 02:29 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 20:17 +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 02:09:55PM -0400, Matt Porter wrote:
> > >>>> Come to think of it, we do have a long existing workaround: the
> > >>>> force_gpt option. Setting it will bypass any MBR checking
> > >>>> (is_pmbr_valid(), specifically).
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, that's what I used at first after seeing what the problem was. But then
> > >>> I opted to fix my PMBR.
> > >>>
> > >>> I felt like it was a regression since it required a new option passed on the
> > >>> cmdline.
> > >>
> > >>   Yep, it is *regression* and I guess Davidlohr is going to fix it asap :-)
> > >
> > > I was doing a git revert, but what would you guys think of keeping the
> > > check but making it more flexible? Instead of enforcing the minimum,
> > > just make sure that the size_in_lba is either the whole disk or 2 TiB,
> > > that should take care of Matt's issue.
> > 
> > That seems to be the way to go given the departure from the spec.
> 
> Matt, could you please verify that this patch fixes your problem?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 8<-------------------------------------------------
> 
> From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
> Subject: [PATCH] partitions/efi: loosen pmbr size in lba check
> 
> Matt found that commit 27a7c64 (partitions/efi: account for pmbr size in lba)
> caused his GPT formatted eMMC device not to boot. The reason is that this commit
> enforced Linux to always check the lesser of the whole disk or 2Tib for the
> pMBR size in LBA. While most disk partitioning tools out there create a pMBR with
> these characteristics, Microsoft does not, as it always sets the entry to the
> maximum 32-bit limitation - even though a drive may be smaller than that[1].
> 
> Loosen this check and only verify that the size is either the whole disk or
> 0xFFFFFFFF. No tool in its right mind would set it to any value other than these.
> 
> [1] http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/GPT.htm#GPTPT
> 
> Reported-by: Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
> ---
>  block/partitions/efi.c | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/partitions/efi.c b/block/partitions/efi.c
> index 1a5ec9a..9bae49c 100644
> --- a/block/partitions/efi.c
> +++ b/block/partitions/efi.c
> @@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ invalid:
>   */
>  static int is_pmbr_valid(legacy_mbr *mbr, sector_t total_sectors)
>  {
> +	uint32_t sz = 0;
>  	int i, part = 0, ret = 0; /* invalid by default */
>  
>  	if (!mbr || le16_to_cpu(mbr->signature) != MSDOS_MBR_SIGNATURE)
> @@ -216,12 +217,15 @@ check_hybrid:
>  	/*
>  	 * Protective MBRs take up the lesser of the whole disk
>  	 * or 2 TiB (32bit LBA), ignoring the rest of the disk.
> +	 * Some partitioning programs, nonetheless, choose to set
> +	 * the size to the maximum 32-bit limitation, disregarding
> +	 * the disk size.
>  	 *
>  	 * Hybrid MBRs do not necessarily comply with this.
>  	 */
>  	if (ret == GPT_MBR_PROTECTIVE) {
> -		if (le32_to_cpu(mbr->partition_record[part].size_in_lba) !=
> -		    min((uint32_t) total_sectors - 1, 0xFFFFFFFF))
> +		sz = le32_to_cpu(mbr->partition_record[part].size_in_lba);
> +		if (sz != (uint32_t) total_sectors - 1 || sz != 0xFFFFFFFF)

Almost! You'll want to get that brown paper bag out cause I've worn it
for this same type of bug before. Add this fix in and you can have my

Tested-by: Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>

diff --git a/block/partitions/efi.c b/block/partitions/efi.c
index 9bae49c..1eb09ee 100644
--- a/block/partitions/efi.c
+++ b/block/partitions/efi.c
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ check_hybrid:
         */
        if (ret == GPT_MBR_PROTECTIVE) {
                sz = le32_to_cpu(mbr->partition_record[part].size_in_lba);
-               if (sz != (uint32_t) total_sectors - 1 || sz != 0xFFFFFFFF)
+               if (sz != (uint32_t) total_sectors - 1 && sz != 0xFFFFFFFF)
			ret = 0;
        }
 done:

Thanks,
Matt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/