linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] arm64: kexec_file

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: <20160705080355.GQ20774@linaro.org>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:03:57 +0900
From:	AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
To:	Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Cc:	Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, bhe@...hat.com,
	vgoyal@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm64: kexec_file_load support

Hi Dave,

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 09:25:56AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On 07/04/16 at 03:58pm, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 12:46:31PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, 01 Juli 2016, 14:11:12 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> > > > I'm not sure whether there is any demand for kexec_file_load
> > > > support on arm64, but anyhow I'm working on this and now
> > > > my early prototype code does work fine.
> > > 
> > > It is necessary if you want to support loading only signed kernels, and also 
> > > if you want IMA to measure the kernel in its event log.
> > > 
> > > > There is, however, one essential issue:
> > > > While arm64 kernel requires a device tree blob to be set up
> > > > correctly at boot time, the current system call API doesn't
> > > > have this parameter.
> > > >     int kexec_file_load(int kernel_fd, int initrd_fd,
> > > >                         unsigned long cmdline_len, const char
> > > > *cmdline_ptr, unsigned long flags);
> > > > 
> > > > Should we invent a new system call, like kexec_file_load2,
> > > > and, if so, what kind of interface would be desired?
> > > 
> > > I'm facing the same issue on powerpc. What I'm doing is taking the device 
> > > tree that was used to boot the current kernel and modifying it as necessary 
> > > to pass it to the next kernel.
> > 
> > That is exactly what I do.
> > 
> > > I agree that it would be better if we could have a system call where a 
> > > custom device tree could be passed. One suggestion is:
> > 
> > For powerpc, you might be able to use dtbImage instead of Image
> > without changing the kernel interfaces.
> > > 
> > > kexec_file_load2(int fds[], int fd_types[], int nr_fds,
> > > 		 unsigned long cmdline_len, const char *cmdline_ptr,
> > > 		unsigned long flags);
> > 
> > You don't want to simply add one more argument, i.e. dtb_fd, don't you.
> > 
> > I prefer a slightly-simpler interface:
> >         struct kexec_file_fd {
> >                 enum kexec_file_type;
> >                 int fd;
> >         }
> > 
> >         int kexec_file_load2(struct kexec_file_fd[], int nr_fds, int flags);
> > 
> > Or if you want to keep the compatibility with the existing system call,
> > 
> >         int kexec_file_load(int kernel_fd, int initrd_fd,
> >                         unsigned long cmdline_len, const char *cmdline_ptr,
> >                         unsigned long flags,
> >                         int struct kexec_file_fd[], int nr_fds);
> > 
> > Here SYSCALL_DEFINE7() have to be defined, and I'm not sure that we will not
> > have a problem in adding a system call with more than 6 arguments.
> > 
> > > Where fds is an array with nr_fds file descriptors and fd_types is an array 
> > > specifying what each fd in fds is. So for example, if fds[i] is the kernel, 
> > > then fd_types[i] would have the value KEXEC_FILE_KERNEL_FD. If fds[i] is the 
> > > device tree blob, fd_types[i], would have the value KEXEC_FILE_DTB and so 
> > > on. That way, the syscall can be extended for an arbitrary number and types 
> > > of segments that have to be loaded, just like kexec_load.
> > > 
> > > Another option is to have a struct:
> > > 
> > > kexec_file_load2(struct kexec_file_params *params, unsigned long params_sz);
> > 
> > Wow, we can add any number of new parameters with this interface.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -Takahiro AKASHI
> > 
> > > Where:
> > > 
> > > struct kexec_file_params {
> > > 	int version;	/* allows struct to be extended in the future */
> > > 	int fds[];
> > > 	int fd_types[];
> > > 	int nr_fds;
> > > 	unsigned long cmdline_len;
> > > 	const char *cmdline_ptr;
> > > 	unsigned long flags;
> > > };
> > > 
> > > This is even more flexible.
> 
> I would like to vote for this one, and use kexec_file_fd fds[] in the struct 

If we take this approach, we'd better take "flags" out of struct,
and my preference would be:

        enum kexec_file_type {
                KEXEC_FILE_TYPE_KERNEL;
                KEXEC_FILE_TYPE_INITRD;
                KEXEC_FILE_TYPE_DTB;
        }

        struct kexec_file_fd {
                enum kexec_file_type;
                int fd;
        }

        sturct kexec_file_params {
                int version;
                unsigned char *cmdline;
                unsigned long cmdline_len;
                int nr_fds;
                struct kexec_file_fd fds[0];
        }

        int kexec_file_load2(int kernel_fd, unsigned long flags,
                                sturct kexec_file_params extra);

So we don't have to retrieve extra if KEXEC_FILE_UNLOAD
(or kernel_fd < 0?),
and only once retrieve extra if extra != NULL && nr_fds == 0.

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI

> Thanks
> Dave