linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] efi: Fix handling of multiple efi_fake

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: <20200107051919.GC19080@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:19:19 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>,
        Michael Weiser <michael@...ser.dinsnail.net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] efi: Fix handling of multiple efi_fake_mem=
 entries

On 01/06/20 at 08:16pm, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:04 PM Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 01/06/20 at 04:40pm, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Dave noticed that when specifying multiple efi_fake_mem= entries only
> > > the last entry was successfully being reflected in the efi memory map.
> > > This is due to the fact that the efi_memmap_insert() is being called
> > > multiple times, but on successive invocations the insertion should be
> > > applied to the last new memmap rather than the original map at
> > > efi_fake_memmap() entry.
> > >
> > > Rework efi_fake_memmap() to install the new memory map after each
> > > efi_fake_mem= entry is parsed.
> > >
> > > This also fixes an issue in efi_fake_memmap() that caused it to litter
> > > emtpy entries into the end of the efi memory map. An empty entry causes
> > > efi_memmap_insert() to attempt more memmap splits / copies than
> > > efi_memmap_split_count() accounted for when sizing the new map. When
> > > that happens efi_memmap_insert() may overrun its allocation, and if you
> > > are lucky will spill over to an unmapped page leading to crash
> > > signature like the following rather than silent corruption:
> > >
> > >     BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffffffff281000
> > >     [..]
> > >     RIP: 0010:efi_memmap_insert+0x11d/0x191
> > >     [..]
> > >     Call Trace:
> > >      ? bgrt_init+0xbe/0xbe
> > >      ? efi_arch_mem_reserve+0x1cb/0x228
> > >      ? acpi_parse_bgrt+0xa/0xd
> > >      ? acpi_table_parse+0x86/0xb8
> > >      ? acpi_boot_init+0x494/0x4e3
> > >      ? acpi_parse_x2apic+0x87/0x87
> > >      ? setup_acpi_sci+0xa2/0xa2
> > >      ? setup_arch+0x8db/0x9e1
> > >      ? start_kernel+0x6a/0x547
> > >      ? secondary_startup_64+0xb6/0xc0
> > >
> > > Commit af1648984828 "x86/efi: Update e820 with reserved EFI boot
> > > services data to fix kexec breakage" is listed in Fixes: since it
> > > introduces more occurrences where efi_memmap_insert() is invoked after
> > > an efi_fake_mem= configuration has been parsed. Previously the side
> > > effects of vestigial empty entries were benign, but with commit
> > > af1648984828 that follow-on efi_memmap_insert() invocation triggers
> > > efi_memmap_insert() overruns.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 0f96a99dab36 ("efi: Add 'efi_fake_mem' boot option")
> > > Fixes: af1648984828 ("x86/efi: Update e820 with reserved EFI boot services...")
> >
> > A nitpick for the Fixes flags, as I replied in the thread below:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-efi/CAPcyv4jLxqPaB22Ao9oV31Gm=b0+Phty+Uz33Snex4QchOUb0Q@mail.gmail.com/T/#m2bb2dd00f7715c9c19ccc48efef0fcd5fdb626e7
> >
> > I reproduced two other panics without the patches applied, so this issue
> > is not caused by either of the commits, maybe just drop the Fixes.
> 
> Just the "Fixes: af1648984828", right? No objection from me. I'll let
> Ingo say if he needs a resend for that.
> 
> The "Fixes: 0f96a99dab36" is valid because the original implementation
> failed to handle the multiple argument case from the beginning.

Agreed, thanks!

Thanks
Dave