linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the PE-COFF 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2017 22:17:40 -0700
From:   hpa@...or.com
To:     Gary Lin <glin@...e.com>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Joey Lee <jlee@...e.com>, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the PE-COFF header

On April 13, 2017 8:51:19 PM PDT, Gary Lin <glin@...e.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:21:20PM -0700, hpa@...or.com wrote:
>> On April 11, 2017 3:20:41 AM PDT, Gary Lin <glin@...e.com> wrote:
>> >This commit adds the new config options to allow the user to modify
>the
>> >following fields in the PE-COFF header.
>> >
>> >UINT16 MajorOperatingSystemVersion
>> >UINT16 MinorOperatingSystemVersion
>> >UINT16 MajorImageVersion
>> >UINT16 MinorImageVersion
>> >
>> >Those fields are mainly for the executables or libraries in Windows
>NT
>> >or higher to specify the minimum supported Windows version and the
>> >version of the image itself.
>> >
>> >Given the fact that those fields are ignored in UEFI, we can safely
>> >reuse
>> >those fields for other purposes, e.g. Security Version(*).
>> >
>> >(*) https://github.com/lcp/shim/wiki/Security-Version
>> >
>> >Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> >Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
>> >Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
>> >Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
>> >Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>
>> >Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
>> >Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
>> >Cc: Joey Lee <jlee@...e.com>
>> >Cc: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>
>> >Signed-off-by: Gary Lin <glin@...e.com>
>> >Tested-by: Joey Lee <jlee@...e.com>
>> >---
>[snip]
>> 
>> Reusing PECOFF fields seems doubleplusunsafe: we don't own those
>fields, the UEFI forum does.  It would make a lot more sense to add
>these fields to the bzImage header directly or indirectly (via a
>pointer), the latter would be more economical since the bzImage header
>size is bounded.
>> 
>> We could even define it as a pointer to a "security information
>header" with its own size field, so it can be grown in the future as
>needed.
>Reusing PE-COFF simplifies the implementation since shim can parse the
>header directly. I can raise the issue to the UEFI forum to clarify the
>usage of those fields.
>
>Meanwhile, I'll also look into the bzImage header in case the PE-COFF
>header is really a NO-GO.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gary Lin

If we are going to use the PE-COFF hear then you need to write a proposal and get the UEFI forum to sign off on it.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.