linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] efi/capsule: Prepare for loading images with security header

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 Mar 2017 18:23:29 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Cc:     Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        "Bryan O'Donoghue" <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>,
        Hock Leong Kweh <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Sascha Weisenberger <sascha.weisenberger@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] efi/capsule: Prepare for loading images with
 security header

On 28 March 2017 at 18:17, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 28 March 2017 at 17:18, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-03-28 17:52, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 28 March 2017 at 16:43, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-03-28 17:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-03-28 15:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>>>> Could you please have a look at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ardb/linux.git/log/?h=quark-capsule
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and tell me if that would work for you? I will send them out for
>>>>>> proper review in any case, but to avoid confusion (if I missed
>>>>>> something obvious), I don't want to send them out just yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is more needed to make things work again, maybe around passing the
>>>>> right image size. I'm looking into this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This makes CSH images being accepted again:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c
>>>> index 4b6f93f..a4e2311 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c
>>>> @@ -562,6 +562,8 @@ int efi_capsule_setup_info(struct capsule_info *cap_info, void *kbuff,
>>>>  {
>>>>         struct quark_security_header *csh = kbuff;
>>>>
>>>> +       cap_info->total_size = 0;
>>>> +
>>>>         if (!x86_match_cpu(quark_ids))
>>>>                 goto fallback;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -587,12 +589,16 @@ int efi_capsule_setup_info(struct capsule_info *cap_info, void *kbuff,
>>>>
>>>>         kbuff += csh->headersize;
>>>>
>>>> +       cap_info->total_size = csh->headersize;
>>>> +
>>>>  fallback:
>>>>         if (hdr_bytes < sizeof(efi_capsule_header_t))
>>>>                 return 0;
>>>>
>>>>         memcpy(&cap_info->header, kbuff, sizeof(cap_info->header));
>>>>
>>>> +       cap_info->total_size += cap_info->header.imagesize;
>>>> +
>>>>         return __efi_capsule_setup_info(cap_info);
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/capsule-loader.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/capsule-loader.c
>>>> index e851951..40dc354 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/capsule-loader.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/capsule-loader.c
>>>> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ int __efi_capsule_setup_info(struct capsule_info *cap_info)
>>>>         int ret;
>>>>         void *temp_page;
>>>>
>>>> -       pages_needed = ALIGN(cap_info->header.imagesize, PAGE_SIZE) / PAGE_SIZE;
>>>> +       pages_needed = ALIGN(cap_info->total_size, PAGE_SIZE) / PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>
>>>>         if (pages_needed == 0) {
>>>>                 pr_err("invalid capsule size");
>>>> @@ -59,7 +59,6 @@ int __efi_capsule_setup_info(struct capsule_info *cap_info)
>>>>                 return ret;
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>> -       cap_info->total_size = cap_info->header.imagesize;
>>>>         temp_page = krealloc(cap_info->pages,
>>>>                              pages_needed * sizeof(void *),
>>>>                              GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
>>>> @@ -87,6 +86,8 @@ int __weak efi_capsule_setup_info(struct capsule_info *cap_info, void *kbuff,
>>>>
>>>>         memcpy(&cap_info->header, kbuff, sizeof(cap_info->header));
>>>>
>>>> +       cap_info->total_size = cap_info->header.imagesize;
>>>> +
>>>>         return __efi_capsule_setup_info(cap_info);
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, thanks for debugging that.
>>>
>>>> But then my changes to efi_capsule_update are missing the present the
>>>> right format to the loader. As efi_capsule_update needs to lay out the
>>>> sg-list in as special way, excluding the CSH on the first page, it needs
>>>> to know about the displacement.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions how to address that without rolling back to my aproach?
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, I'm a bit lost now: for my understanding, could you please
>>> reiterate how the CSH image deviates from the ordinary one? Or more
>>> specifically, what exactly is preventing us from simply chopping off
>>> the CSH header and pushing the capsule header + payload into
>>> /dev/capsule_loader?
>>>
>>
>> Devices that mandate a signed capsule for updates expect the CSH in
>> front of the regular capsule image. The interface to UEFI remains
>> unchanged, i.e. you pass the virtually chopped off capsule, but you have
>> to leave the CSH in RAM right in front of that very same image. It's a
>> "nice" side-channel API.
>>
>
> Wow, that is worse than I thought.
>
> So my suggestion (which I coded up, please pull again),

Hmm, it does not build on x86 atm. Let me fix that up first (~15 min)

> is to replace
> the array of struct page pointers with an array of physical addresses
> in the capsule_info struct. This way, your special version of
> efi_capsule_setup_info() can advance the first one by the size of the
> header.
>
> I hope this works for you. I am not sure whether imagesize needs to be
> modified, so I left it alone for now (but I suspect it should be).