linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 47/47] x86/microcode/intel: Check patch signature before saving microcode for early loading

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:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:22:33 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 47/47] x86/microcode/intel: Check patch signature before saving microcode for early loading

From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>

commit 1a371e67dc77125736cc56d3a0893f06b75855b6 upstream.

Currently, scan_microcode() leverages microcode_matches() to check
if the microcode matches the CPU by comparing the family and model.
However, the processor stepping and flags of the microcode signature
should also be considered when saving a microcode patch for early
update.

Use find_matching_signature() in scan_microcode() and get rid of the
now-unused microcode_matches() which is a good cleanup in itself.

Complete the verification of the patch being saved for early loading in
save_microcode_patch() directly. This needs to be done there too because
save_mc_for_early() will call save_microcode_patch() too.

The second reason why this needs to be done is because the loader still
tries to support, at least hypothetically, mixed-steppings systems and
thus adds all patches to the cache that belong to the same CPU model
albeit with different steppings.

For example:

  microcode: CPU: sig=0x906ec, pf=0x2, rev=0xd6
  microcode: mc_saved[0]: sig=0x906e9, pf=0x2a, rev=0xd6, total size=0x19400, date = 2020-04-23
  microcode: mc_saved[1]: sig=0x906ea, pf=0x22, rev=0xd6, total size=0x19000, date = 2020-04-27
  microcode: mc_saved[2]: sig=0x906eb, pf=0x2, rev=0xd6, total size=0x19400, date = 2020-04-23
  microcode: mc_saved[3]: sig=0x906ec, pf=0x22, rev=0xd6, total size=0x19000, date = 2020-04-27
  microcode: mc_saved[4]: sig=0x906ed, pf=0x22, rev=0xd6, total size=0x19400, date = 2020-04-23

The patch which is being saved for early loading, however, can only be
the one which fits the CPU this runs on so do the signature verification
before saving.

 [ bp: Do signature verification in save_microcode_patch()
       and rewrite commit message. ]

Fixes: ec400ddeff20 ("x86/microcode_intel_early.c: Early update ucode on Intel's CPU")
Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208535
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201113015923.13960-1-yu.c.chen@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>


---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c |   48 +---------------------------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -147,51 +147,6 @@ load_microcode(struct mc_saved_data *mcs
 	}
 }
 
-/*
- * Given CPU signature and a microcode patch, this function finds if the
- * microcode patch has matching family and model with the CPU.
- */
-static enum ucode_state
-matching_model_microcode(struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
-			unsigned long sig)
-{
-	unsigned int fam, model;
-	unsigned int fam_ucode, model_ucode;
-	struct extended_sigtable *ext_header;
-	unsigned long total_size = get_totalsize(mc_header);
-	unsigned long data_size = get_datasize(mc_header);
-	int ext_sigcount, i;
-	struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
-
-	fam   = x86_family(sig);
-	model = x86_model(sig);
-
-	fam_ucode   = x86_family(mc_header->sig);
-	model_ucode = x86_model(mc_header->sig);
-
-	if (fam == fam_ucode && model == model_ucode)
-		return UCODE_OK;
-
-	/* Look for ext. headers: */
-	if (total_size <= data_size + MC_HEADER_SIZE)
-		return UCODE_NFOUND;
-
-	ext_header   = (void *) mc_header + data_size + MC_HEADER_SIZE;
-	ext_sig      = (void *)ext_header + EXT_HEADER_SIZE;
-	ext_sigcount = ext_header->count;
-
-	for (i = 0; i < ext_sigcount; i++) {
-		fam_ucode   = x86_family(ext_sig->sig);
-		model_ucode = x86_model(ext_sig->sig);
-
-		if (fam == fam_ucode && model == model_ucode)
-			return UCODE_OK;
-
-		ext_sig++;
-	}
-	return UCODE_NFOUND;
-}
-
 static int
 save_microcode(struct mc_saved_data *mcs,
 	       struct microcode_intel **mc_saved_src,
@@ -332,7 +287,8 @@ get_matching_model_microcode(unsigned lo
 		 * the platform, we need to find and save microcode patches
 		 * with the same family and model as the BSP.
 		 */
-		if (matching_model_microcode(mc_header, uci->cpu_sig.sig) != UCODE_OK) {
+		if (!find_matching_signature(mc_header, uci->cpu_sig.sig,
+					     uci->cpu_sig.pf)) {
 			ucode_ptr += mc_size;
 			continue;
 		}