linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] efi: Introduce EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_CAPSULE

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: <YXkjS/yhAYAIAWRu@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:00:43 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To:     Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] efi: Introduce
 EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_CAPSULE_HEADER and corresponding structures

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 03:07:24PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> Platform Firmware Runtime Update image starts with UEFI headers, and the
> headers are defined in UEFI specification, but some of them have not been
> defined in the kernel yet.
> 
> For example, the header layout of a capsule file looks like this:
> 
> EFI_CAPSULE_HEADER
> EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_CAPSULE_HEADER
> EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_CAPSULE_IMAGE_HEADER
> EFI_FIRMWARE_IMAGE_AUTHENTICATION
> 
> These structures would be used by the Platform Firmware Runtime Update
> driver to parse the format of capsule file to verify if the corresponding
> version number is valid. The EFI_CAPSULE_HEADER has been defined in the
> kernel, however the rest are not, thus introduce corresponding UEFI
> structures accordingly. Besides, EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_CAPSULE_HEADER
> and EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_CAPSULE_IMAGE_HEADER are required to be packed
> in the uefi specification. And Ard has pointed out that, the __packed
> attribute does indicate to the compiler that the entire thing can appear
> misaligned in memory. So if one follows the other in the capsule header,
> the __packed attribute may be appropriate to ensure that the second one
> is not accessed using misaligned loads and stores.

...

> +/* EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_CAPSULE_IMAGE_HEADER */
> +struct efi_manage_capsule_image_header {
> +	u32	ver;

> +	guid_t	image_type_id;

Shouldn't it be efi_guid_t ?

> +	u8	image_index;
> +	u8	reserved_bytes[3];
> +	u32	image_size;
> +	u32	vendor_code_size;
> +	/* ver = 2. */
> +	u64	hw_ins;
> +	/* ver = v3. */
> +	u64	capsule_support;
> +} __packed;

...

> +/* WIN_CERTIFICATE_UEFI_GUID */
> +struct win_cert_uefi_guid {
> +	struct win_cert	hdr;

> +	guid_t		cert_type;

Ditto.

> +	u8		cert_data[];
> +};

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko