Message-ID: <CA+zpnLfGfcsNGxLdk=pWgvMZqHqSp-BBo1DX4nL=hcHQxnpmGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 07:24:22 +0000
From:   Thiebaud Weksteen <tweek@...gle.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org>, hdegoede@...hat.com,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regression from efi: call get_event_log before ExitBootServices

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:03 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
wrote:

> On 12 March 2018 at 19:55, Thiebaud Weksteen <tweek@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:33 PM Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/12/2018 02:29 PM, Thiebaud Weksteen wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:30 PM Ard Biesheuvel <
> > ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 12 March 2018 at 17:01, Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org> wrote:
> >> >>> On 03/12/2018 10:56 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >>>> On 12 March 2018 at 14:30, Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 03/12/2018 07:08 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On 10 March 2018 at 10:45, Thiebaud Weksteen <tweek@...gle.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:54 PM Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 10:43:50AM +0000, Thiebaud Weksteen
> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for trying out the patch!
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Please don't modify your install at this stage, I think we
are
> >> > hitting a
> >> >>>>>>>>> firmware bug and that would be awesome if we can fix how we
are
> >> >>>>>>> handling it.
> >> >>>>>>>>> So, if we reach that stage in the function it could either be
> >> > that:
> >> >>>>>>>>> * The allocation did not succeed, somehow, but the firmware
> > still
> >> >>>>>>> returned
> >> >>>>>>>>> EFI_SUCCEED.
> >> >>>>>>>>> * The size requested is incorrect (I'm thinking something
like a
> >> > 1G of
> >> >>>>>>>>> log). This would be due to either a miscalculation of
log_size
> >> >>>>>>> (possible)
> >> >>>>>>>>> or; the returned values of GetEventLog are not correct.
> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm sending a patch to add checks for these. Could you please
> >> > apply and
> >> >>>>>>>>> retest?
> >> >>>>>>>>> Again, thanks for helping debugging this.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> No problem, thanks for the help :)
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> With the new patch:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Locating the TCG2Protocol
> >> >>>>>>>> Calling GetEventLog on TCG2Protocol
> >> >>>>>>>> Log returned
> >> >>>>>>>> log_location is not empty
> >> >>>>>>>> log_size != 0
> >> >>>>>>>> log_size < 1M
> >> >>>>>>>> Allocating memory for storing the logs
> >> >>>>>>>> Returned from memory allocation
> >> >>>>>>>> Copying log to new location
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> And then it hangs. I added a couple more print statements:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/tpm.c
> >> >>>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/tpm.c
> >> >>>>>>>> index ee3fac109078..1ab5638bc50e 100644
> >> >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/tpm.c
> >> >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/tpm.c
> >> >>>>>>>> @@ -148,8 +148,11 @@ void
> >> >>>>>>> efi_retrieve_tpm2_eventlog_1_2(efi_system_table_t
*sys_table_arg)
> >> >>>>>>>>          efi_printk(sys_table_arg, "Copying log to new
> >> > location\n");
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>          memset(log_tbl, 0, sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_size);
> >> >>>>>>>> +       efi_printk(sys_table_arg, "Successfully memset
log_tbl to
> >> > 0\n");
> >> >>>>>>>>          log_tbl->size = log_size;
> >> >>>>>>>> +       efi_printk(sys_table_arg, "Set log_tbl->size\n");
> >> >>>>>>>>          log_tbl->version = EFI_TCG2_EVENT_LOG_FORMAT_TCG_1_2;
> >> >>>>>>>> +       efi_printk(sys_table_arg, "Set log_tbl-version\n");
> >> >>>>>>>>          memcpy(log_tbl->log, (void *) first_entry_addr,
> > log_size);
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>          efi_printk(sys_table_arg, "Installing the log into
the
> >> >>>>>>> configuration table\n");
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> and it's hanging at "memset(log_tbl, 0, sizeof(*log_tbl) +
> >> > log_size);"
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Thanks. Well, it looks like the memory that is supposedly
> > allocated
> >> > is not
> >> >>>>>>> usable. I'm thinking this is a firmware bug.
> >> >>>>>>> Ard, would you agree on this assumption? Thoughts on how to
> > proceed?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I am rather puzzled why the allocate_pool() should succeed and
the
> >> >>>>>> subsequent memset() should fail. This does not look like an
issue
> >> > that
> >> >>>>>> is intimately related to TPM2 support, rather an issue in the
> >> > firmware
> >> >>>>>> that happens to get tickled after the change.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Would you mind trying replacing EFI_LOADER_DATA with
> >> >>>>>> EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA in the allocate_pool() call?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Replacing EFI_LOADER_DATA with EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_DATA still
hangs at
> >> > the
> >> >>>>> memset() call.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Could you try the following please? (attached as well in case
gmail
> >> > mangles it)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/tpm.c
> >> >>>> b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/tpm.c
> >> >>>> index 2298560cea72..30d960a344b7 100644
> >> >>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/tpm.c
> >> >>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/tpm.c
> >> >>>> @@ -70,6 +70,8 @@ void
> >> >>>> efi_retrieve_tpm2_eventlog_1_2(efi_system_table_t *sys_table_arg)
> >> >>>>         size_t log_size, last_entry_size;
> >> >>>>         efi_bool_t truncated;
> >> >>>>         void *tcg2_protocol;
> >> >>>> +       unsigned long num_pages;
> >> >>>> +       efi_physical_addr_t log_tbl_alloc;
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>         status = efi_call_early(locate_protocol, &tcg2_guid, NULL,
> >> >>>>                                 &tcg2_protocol);
> >> >>>> @@ -104,9 +106,12 @@ void
> >> >>>> efi_retrieve_tpm2_eventlog_1_2(efi_system_table_t *sys_table_arg)
> >> >>>>         }
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>         /* Allocate space for the logs and copy them. */
> >> >>>> -       status = efi_call_early(allocate_pool, EFI_LOADER_DATA,
> >> >>>> -                               sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_size,
> >> >>>> -                               (void **) &log_tbl);
> >> >>>> +       num_pages = DIV_ROUND_UP(sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_size,
> >> > EFI_PAGE_SIZE);
> >> >>>> +       status = efi_call_early(allocate_pages,
> >> >>>> +                               EFI_ALLOCATE_ANY_PAGES,
> >> >>>> +                               EFI_LOADER_DATA,
> >> >>>> +                               num_pages,
> >> >>>> +                               &log_tbl_alloc);
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>         if (status != EFI_SUCCESS) {
> >> >>>>                 efi_printk(sys_table_arg,
> >> >>>> @@ -114,6 +119,7 @@ void
> >> >>>> efi_retrieve_tpm2_eventlog_1_2(efi_system_table_t *sys_table_arg)
> >> >>>>                 return;
> >> >>>>         }
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> +       log_tbl = (struct linux_efi_tpm_eventlog *)(unsigned
> >> > long)log_tbl_alloc;
> >> >>>>         memset(log_tbl, 0, sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_size);
> >> >>>>         log_tbl->size = log_size;
> >> >>>>         log_tbl->version = EFI_TCG2_EVENT_LOG_FORMAT_TCG_1_2;
> >> >>>> @@ -126,7 +132,7 @@ void
> >> >>>> efi_retrieve_tpm2_eventlog_1_2(efi_system_table_t *sys_table_arg)
> >> >>>>         return;
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>  err_free:
> >> >>>> -       efi_call_early(free_pool, log_tbl);
> >> >>>> +       efi_call_early(free_pages, log_tbl_alloc, num_pages);
> >> >>>>  }
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>  void efi_retrieve_tpm2_eventlog(efi_system_table_t
*sys_table_arg)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Ard,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> When I apply this, it starts hanging at
> >> >>>
> >> >>> status = efi_call_proto(efi_tcg2_protocol, get_event_log,
> > tcg2_protocol,
> >> >>>                         EFI_TCG2_EVENT_LOG_FORMAT_TCG_1_2,
> >> >>>                         &log_location, &log_last_entry,
&truncated);
> >> >>>
> >> >>> rather than at the memset() call.
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> >> That is *very* surprising, given that the change only affects code
> >> >> that executes after that.
> >> >
> >
> > Hans, you said you configured the tablet to use the 32-bit version of
grub
> > instead
> > of 64. Why's that?
> >
> > Jeremy, could you confirm if you are building the kernel in 64bit mode?
Is
> > your Android install working? (that is, what happens if you boot
Boot0000)?
> >
> >> >> I understand how annoying this is for you, and I think we should try
> >> >> to fix this, but reverting the patches outright isn't the solution
> >> >> either.
> >> >
> >> >> Which UEFI vendor and version does your system report?
> >> >
> >> > You should be able to find this info using the "ver" command in the
UEFI
> >> > shell.
> >> > The UEFI vendor is Insyde (see first message).
> >> >
> >
> >> Ah, thanks!
> >
> >> EFI Specification Revision      : 2.40
> >> EFI Vendor                      : INSYDE Corp.
> >> EFI Revision                    : 21573.83
> >

> Thiebaud,

> If we don't manage to resolve this, do you see any way to blacklist
> systems based on this information? Would it be reasonable, say, to
> require UEFI v2.5 or later for TPM2 support? Or doesn't that make any
> sense (I am aware that the TCG EFI spec and the UEFI spec are somewhat
> orthogonal, but it also depends on the hardware you are targetting, I
> guess). Otherwise, we could use a more specific match, perhaps?

I understand we are getting late in the rc and that this should be resolved
quickly. As we have seen, this is a bug related to the firmware more than
the TPM version. So filtering out on the UEFI version make sense. If it is
too late and our only option, I'm ok with filtering out on >= 2.5. A more
specific match would target the exact EFI revision, right? If so, yes that
would be better but I'm not sure how this can be implemented.

> This is of course depending on whether we reach consensus on whether
> we should make any changes at all for what appears to be a single
> sample of a certain piece of hardware, where other samples running the
> same firmware (right?) are working fine.

Right, this is my understanding as well.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists