linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add an Image header that boot loader can parse.

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:   Wed, 1 May 2019 22:32:30 +0530
From:   Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
To:     Karsten Merker <merker@...ian.org>
Cc:     Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        "zong@...estech.com" <zong@...estech.com>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add an Image header that boot loader can parse.

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:14 PM Karsten Merker <merker@...ian.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:42:40PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > On 4/29/19 4:40 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:25:06 PDT (-0700), atish.patra@....com wrote:
> > > > Currently, last stage boot loaders such as U-Boot can accept only
> > > > uImage which is an unnecessary additional step in automating boot flows.
> > > >
> > > > Add a simple image header that boot loaders can parse and directly
> > > > load kernel flat Image. The existing booting methods will continue to
> > > > work as it is.
> > > >
> > > > Tested on both QEMU and HiFive Unleashed using OpenSBI + U-Boot + Linux.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   arch/riscv/include/asm/image.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >   arch/riscv/kernel/head.S       | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >   2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
> > > >   create mode 100644 arch/riscv/include/asm/image.h
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/image.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/image.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..76a7e0d4068a
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/image.h
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifndef __ASM_IMAGE_H
> > > > +#define __ASM_IMAGE_H
> > > > +
> > > > +#define RISCV_IMAGE_MAGIC        "RISCV"
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * struct riscv_image_header - riscv kernel image header
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @code0:               Executable code
> > > > + * @code1:               Executable code
> > > > + * @text_offset: Image load offset
> > > > + * @image_size:          Effective Image size
> > > > + * @reserved:            reserved
> > > > + * @magic:               Magic number
> > > > + * @reserved:            reserved
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +struct riscv_image_header {
> > > > + u32 code0;
> > > > + u32 code1;
> > > > + u64 text_offset;
> > > > + u64 image_size;
> > > > + u64 res1;
> > > > + u64 magic;
> > > > + u32 res2;
> > > > + u32 res3;
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > I don't want to invent our own file format.  Is there a reason we can't just
> > > use something standard?  Off the top of my head I can think of ELF files and
> > > multiboot.
> >
> > Additional header is required to accommodate PE header format. Currently,
> > this is only used for booti command but it will be reused for EFI headers as
> > well. Linux kernel Image can pretend as an EFI application if PE/COFF header
> > is present. This removes the need of an explicit EFI boot loader and EFI
> > firmware can directly load Linux (obviously after EFI stub implementation
> > for RISC-V).
> >
> > ARM64 follows the similar header format as well.
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/arm64/booting.txt
>
> Hello Atish,
>
> the arm64 header looks a bit different (quoted from the
> aforementioned URL):
>
>   u32 code0;                    /* Executable code */
>   u32 code1;                    /* Executable code */
>   u64 text_offset;              /* Image load offset, little endian */
>   u64 image_size;               /* Effective Image size, little endian */
>   u64 flags;                    /* kernel flags, little endian */
>   u64 res2      = 0;            /* reserved */
>   u64 res3      = 0;            /* reserved */
>   u64 res4      = 0;            /* reserved */
>   u32 magic     = 0x644d5241;   /* Magic number, little endian, "ARM\x64" */
>   u32 res5;                     /* reserved (used for PE COFF offset) */
>
> What I am unclear about is in which ways a RISC-V PE/COFF header
> differs from an arm64 one as the arm64 struct is longer than your
> RISC-V header and for arm64 the PE offset field is in the last
> field, i.e. outside of the area covered by your RISC-V structure
> definition.  Can you perhaps explain this part in a bit more
> detail or does anybody else have a pointer to a specification of
> the RISC-V PE/COFF header format (I have found a lot of documents
> about COFF in general, but nothing specific to RISC-V).

The only difference compared to ARM64 is the values of code0, code1
and res5 fields.

As-per PE/COFF, the 32bit value at offset 0x3c tells us offset of PE/COFF
header in image.

For more details refer,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable#/media/File:Portable_Executable_32_bit_Structure_in_SVG_fixed.svg

For both ARM64 header and RISC-V image header, is actually the
"DOS header" part of PE/COFF format.

This patch only adds "DOS header" part of PE/COFF format. Rest of
the PE/COFF header will be added when add EFI support to Linux
RISC-V kernel.

Regards,
Anup