linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] efi/libstub/fdt: Standardize the names of EFI stub parameters

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]

Date:	Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:06:32 -0600
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	"Ian.Campbell@...rix.com" <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	"julien.grall@...rix.com" <julien.grall@...rix.com>,
	"Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	"freebsd-arm@...ebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@...ebsd.org>,
	"peter.huangpeng@...wei.com" <peter.huangpeng@...wei.com>,
	"Shannon Zhao" <zhaoshenglong@...wei.com>,
	"matt.fleming@...el.com" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	"christoffer.dall@...aro.org" <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
	"leif.lindholm@...aro.org" <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
	"shannon.zhao@...aro.org" <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"daniel.kiper@...cle.com" <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/libstub/fdt: Standardize the names of EFI stub
 parameters

>>> On 10.09.15 at 16:53, <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:55:25PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 10.09.15 at 13:37, <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> >> Why can't Xen give a virtual EFI interface to Dom0 / guests? e.g.
>> >> create pages of RuntimeServicesCode that are trivial assembly shims
>> >> doing hypercalls, and plumb these into the virtual EFI memory map and
>> >> tables?
>> >> 
>> >> That would keep things sane for any guest, allow for easy addition of
>> >> EFI features, and you could even enter the usual EFI entry point,
>> >> simulate ExitBootServices(), SetVirtualAddressMap(), and allow the guest
>> >> to make things sane for itself...
>> > 
>> > That's the way it was done on x86 and now we have common code both in
>> > Linux (drivers/xen/efi.c) and Xen (xen/common/efi) which implement this
>> > scheme.  Switching to a different solution for ARM, would mean diverging
>> > with x86, which is not nice, or reimplementing the x86 solution too,
>> > which is expensive.
>> > 
>> > BTW I think that the idea you proposed was actually considered at the
>> > time and deemed hard to implement, if I recall correctly.
>> 
>> Considering that the EFI support is just for Dom0, and Dom0 (at
>> the time) had to be PV anyway, it was the more natural solution to
>> expose the interface via hypercalls, the more that this allows better
>> control over what is and primarily what is not being exposed to
>> Dom0. With the wrapper approach we'd be back to the same
>> problem (discussed elsewhere) of which EFI version to surface: The
>> host one would impose potentially missing extensions, while the
>> most recent hypervisor known one might imply hiding valuable
>> information from Dom0. Plus there are incompatible changes like
>> the altered meaning of EFI_MEMORY_WP in 2.5.
> 
> I'm not sure I follow how hypercalls solve any impedance mismatch here;
> you're still expecting Dom0 to call up to Xen in order to perform calls,
> and all I suggested was a different location for those hypercalls.
> 
> If Xen is happy to make such calls blindly, why does it matter if the
> hypercall was in the kernel binary or an external shim?

Because there could be new entries in SystemTable->RuntimeServices
(expected and blindly but validly called by the kernel). Even worse
(because likely harder to deal with) would be new fields in other
structures.

> Incompatible changes are a spec problem regardless of how this is
> handled.

Not necessarily - we don't expose the memory map (we'd have to
if we were to mimic EFI for Dom0), and hence the mentioned issue
doesn't exist in our model.

Jan

--
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/