linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/ima: retry detecting secure boot mode

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]

Message-Id: <1552323292.6100.45.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:54:52 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Cc:     Justin Forbes <jforbes@...hat.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/ima: retry detecting secure boot mode

On Fri, 2019-03-08 at 09:51 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:40 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 14:50 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Is the issue that it gives incorrect results on the first read, or is
> > > the issue that it gives incorrect results before ExitBootServices() is
> > > called? If the former then we should read twice in the boot stub, if
> > > the latter then we should figure out a way to do this immediately
> > > after ExitBootServices() instead.
> >
> > Detecting the secure boot mode isn't the problem.  On boot, I am
> > seeing "EFI stub: UEFI Secure Boot is enabled", but setup_arch() emits
> > "Secure boot could not be determined".
> >
> > In efi_main() the secure_boot mode is initially unset, so
> > efi_get_secureboot() is called.  efi_get_secureboot() returns the
> > secure_boot mode correctly as enabled.  The problem seems to be in
> > saving the secure_boot mode for later use.
> 
> Hm. And this only happens on certain firmware versions? If something's
> stepping on boot_params then we have bigger problems.

I was seeing this problem before and after updating the system
firmware on my laptop last summer.  If updating the firmware had
resolved the problem, I wouldn't have included this patch.

Mimi