linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] m68k: virt: pass RNG seed via bootinfo block

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: <CAHmME9oGOduYbw_-=0QeKzW6Lj07S6tevssvUpyWLgutuxE+UA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 25 Jun 2022 18:26:38 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k: virt: pass RNG seed via bootinfo block

On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 6:24 PM Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu> wrote:
>
> Le 25/06/2022 à 18:19, Jason A. Donenfeld a écrit :
> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 6:08 PM Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 25/06/2022 à 17:38, Jason A. Donenfeld a écrit :
> >>> Other virt VMs can pass RNG seeds via the "rng-seed" device tree
> >>> property or via UEFI, but m68k doesn't have either. Instead it has its
> >>> own bootinfo protocol. So this commit adds support for receiving a RNG
> >>> seed from it, which will be used at the earliest possible time in boot,
> >>> just like device tree.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/bootinfo-virt.h | 1 +
> >>>    arch/m68k/virt/config.c                    | 4 ++++
> >>>    2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/bootinfo-virt.h b/arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/bootinfo-virt.h
> >>> index e4db7e2213ab..7c3044acdf4a 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/bootinfo-virt.h
> >>> +++ b/arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/bootinfo-virt.h
> >>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> >>>    #define BI_VIRT_GF_TTY_BASE 0x8003
> >>>    #define BI_VIRT_VIRTIO_BASE 0x8004
> >>>    #define BI_VIRT_CTRL_BASE   0x8005
> >>> +#define BI_VIRT_RNG_SEED     0x8006
> >>>
> >>>    #define VIRT_BOOTI_VERSION  MK_BI_VERSION(2, 0)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/m68k/virt/config.c b/arch/m68k/virt/config.c
> >>> index 632ba200ad42..ad71af8273ec 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/m68k/virt/config.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/m68k/virt/config.c
> >>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> >>>
> >>>    #include <linux/reboot.h>
> >>>    #include <linux/serial_core.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/random.h>
> >>>    #include <clocksource/timer-goldfish.h>
> >>>
> >>>    #include <asm/bootinfo.h>
> >>> @@ -92,6 +93,9 @@ int __init virt_parse_bootinfo(const struct bi_record *record)
> >>>                data += 4;
> >>>                virt_bi_data.virtio.irq = be32_to_cpup(data);
> >>>                break;
> >>> +     case BI_VIRT_RNG_SEED:
> >>> +             add_bootloader_randomness(data + 4, be32_to_cpup(data));
> >>
> >> In fact, why don't you use the record->size to get the size of the buffer?
> >>
> >> It seems useless to encode twice the length of the buffer, the second time on a 32bit while the
> >> length cannot exceed a 16bit value.
> >
> > Doesn't that make the length ambiguous because of required alignment?
>
> I agree, it's why I understand reviewing the QEMU part of your patch.
>
> > Would rather keep this general. As is, it's also much more like the
> > others and more uniform to keep it that way. You were able to review
> > it and see that it was right after glancing for a second. That seems
> > superior to any imaginary gains we'd get by overloading the record
> > size.
>
> And what about using a 16bit field rather than a 32bit field as the encoded length cannot be greater
> than the record length?

I guess but that's different from all other length fields, and means
we can't expand past 65k if somebody wants to use this for something
more interesting later. Again I wonder what stinginess here gets us.
This is just a boot parameter... No need to go crazy optimizing it.

Jason