linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Don't require non-blocking EFI callbacks

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:   Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:46:58 +0100
From:   Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@...rix.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
CC:     linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sai Praneeth <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Don't require non-blocking EFI callbacks

On 9/26/19 4:29 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:12, Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@...rix.com> wrote:
>>
>> If a backend does not implement non-blocking EFI operations, it implies
>> that the normal operations are non-blocking.
> 
> Is that documented anywhere?

Sort of. From commit 6d80dba1c9fe "efi: Provide a non-blocking 
SetVariable() operation"

"""
Introduce ->set_variable_nonblocking() for this use case. It is an
optional EFI backend operation, and need only be implemented by those
backends that usually acquire locks to serialize access to EFI
variables, as is the case for virt_efi_set_variable() where we now grab
the EFI runtime spinlock.
"""

> 
>> Instead of crashing
>> dereferencing a NULL pointer, fallback to the normal operations since it
>> is safe to do so.
>>
> 
> I agree that crashing is never the right thing to do, but I wonder
> whether we shouldn't just bail instead. If the provided default
> operation is non-blocking, the platform can populate the function
> pointer with a reference to the default implementation.

If you would prefer it that platforms are always required to implement 
the non-blocking functions, then I will just send a simple patch fixing 
up the Xen implementation.

Thanks,
-- 
Ross Lagerwall