linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark images

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:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 19:18:58 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Bryan O'Donoghue" <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>,
        "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
        "Mok, Tze Siong" <tze.siong.mok@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark images

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue
<pure.logic@...us-software.ie> wrote:
> On 28/02/17 15:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue
>> <pure.logic@...us-software.ie> wrote:
>>> On 28/02/17 13:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>>>> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
>>>>> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 28 February 2017 at 12:29, Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb, at 01:20:25PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I said before, I'd be ok with it if we select it compile time,
>>>>>> i.e., no runtime logic that infers whether we are running on such a
>>>>>> system or not, and no carrying both implementations in all kernels
>>>>>> that have capsule loading built in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually it most likely that Quark kernel (kernel compiled to be run
>>>>> on Quark) will be ever used on the rest of (modern) x86 since it's
>>>>> 486+ architecture (kernel has specific option for it, 586TSC).
>>>>
>>>> + it's UP only!
>>>>
>>>>> So, we might just be dependent or chosen by Quark.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Still though the current ia32 kernel runs on Quark and all other ia32
>>> systems.
>>
>> How come? Quark has a silicon bug (SMP kernel might oops) and it is
>> not even i586!
>
> sorry if this is a bit long in advance...
>
> You mean a lock prefixed pagefault.
>
> For reference Quark should be considered CONFIG_M586TSC=y (or better)
> i.e. it's 586 ISA with a TSC added on.

So, if it would be CONFIG_M686=y then?
This is default for x86 32-bit kernels.

>
> I've been meaning to do a write up about this, since I've spent some
> time with a debugger doing an analysis of the fault. Basically any
> operation that is lock-prefixed that also page-faults pushes the address
> of the _previous_ instruction (not the instruction that faulted) onto
> the PF# stack. Which sucks.
>
> Obviously then when you IRET you will execute the previous instruction
> again - on return to user-space - as opposed to the instruction you
> faulted on.
>
> So it's nothing to do with SMP per se, except that the lock prefix was
> added to drive the #lock signal on future SMP versions of the part (that
> never happened). We discussed this @ the time Dave Jones did
>
> commit d4e1a0af1d3a88cdfc8c954d3005eb8745ec518d
> Author: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> Date:   Tue Oct 28 13:57:53 2014 -0400
>
>     x86: Don't enable F00F workaround on Intel Quark processors
>
> ... and we agreed to have a good look at lock prefixed instructions in
> the kernel. On !SMP builds there is (or was at the time anyway) alot of
> LOCK_PREFIX looking like this
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> #define LOCK_PREFIX_HERE \
>                 ".pushsection .smp_locks,\"a\"\n"       \
>                 ".balign 4\n"                           \
>                 ".long 671f - .\n" /* offset */         \
>                 ".popsection\n"                         \
>                 "671:"
>
> #define LOCK_PREFIX LOCK_PREFIX_HERE "\n\tlock; "
>
> #else /* ! CONFIG_SMP */
> #define LOCK_PREFIX_HERE ""
> #define LOCK_PREFIX ""
> #endif
>
> Which meant that !SMP was safe. It was probably overkill though because
> kernel code shouldn't PF anyway.

So, would it work if CONFIG_SMP=y ?
(This is default for x86 32-bit kernels)

> !SMP ia32 builds should be fine and we have never actually seen _kernel_
> code die on SMP builds ... presumably (demonstrably) because lock
> prefixed operations in the kernel don't PF#.

Which doesn't guarantee that it will not oops at some circumstances.

>>> It would be a pity/shame to make this feature dependent on
>>> compiling a Quark specific kernel, after all its only a header on a
>>> capsule as opposed to a large hardware-level architectural divergence.
>>>
>>
>>> I'd still like us to try for a low-fat hook that would a big fat ia32
>>> kernel just work without having to force a user compile up a
>>> Quark-specific kernel.
>>
>> Can you elaborate how to run i686 kernel (which is default for x86
>> 32-bit AFAIK) on Quark?
>
> A kernel compiled like this
>
> make menuconfig ARCH=i386

I hope you care that it is equivalent to

make menuconfig ARCH=i686

> make bzImage -j 8
>
> will run just fine on Quark x1000 I do it regularly. CPUID ought to (and
> does) inform the runtime kernel of what to do re: MSRs etc.
>
> We won't execute xmm/mmx, we won't touch 686 specific MSRs etc, etc.

It is i*6*86 code still.

So, summarize, you state that
1. CONFIG_SMP=y and
2. CONFIG_M686=y and
3. Kernel works on Quark

Is it correct?

If 1 or 2 is not correct it means we can *not* use the same kernel on
Quark. Unfortunately.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko