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  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:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:49:54 +0000
From:   Matt Fleming <>
To:     David Howells <>
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>, Peter Jones <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] efi: Get the secure boot status [ver #6]

(Cc'ing Peter A. and Peter J. for boot params discussion)

On Wed, 11 Jan, at 03:27:23PM, David Howells wrote:
> Matt Fleming <> wrote:
> > > +	movb	$0, BP_secure_boot(%rsi)
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_STUB
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * The entry point for the PE/COFF executable is efi_pe_entry, so
> > 
> > Is clearing ::secure_boot really necessary? Any code path that goes
> > via efi_main() will set it correctly and all other code paths should
> > get it cleared in sanitize_boot_params(), no?
> No.
> The boot_params->secure_boot parameter exists whether or not efi_main() is
> traversed (ie. if EFI isn't enabled or CONFIG_EFI_STUB=n) and, if not cleared,
> is of uncertain value.
> Further, sanitize_boot_params() has to be modified by this patch so as not to
> clobber the secure_boot flag.

Any new parameters that boot loaders do not know about should be
cleared to zero by default in the boot loader because boot_params
itself should be zero'd when allocated.

There are two cases to consider:

 1) boot_params is not zero'd
 2) boot_params is zero'd

1) This is a broken boot loader implementation that violates the x86
boot specification and I would never expect ->secure_boot to have a
valid value. It should not be special-cased in sanitize_boot_params(),
it should be zero'd.

2) In this case ->secure_boot should be zero unless modified inside of

Did you hit the scenario where ->secure_boot has a garbage value while
developing these patches? I wouldn't expect to see it in practice.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists