Message-ID: <CAHmME9pRMqqsdzVVNu7XiF0gbm6Ah8tSqNRb8SWDtHnHhT4LZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2022 15:12:01 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] m68k: virt: generate new RNG seed on reboot

Hi Laurent,

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 3:10 PM Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu> wrote:
>
> Le 26/09/2022 à 15:04, Jason A. Donenfeld a écrit :
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 3:02 PM Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 26/09/2022 à 14:56, Jason A. Donenfeld a écrit :
> >>> Hi Laurent,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 2:52 PM Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Jason,
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 26/09/2022 à 14:02, Jason A. Donenfeld a écrit :
> >>>>> Hi Laurent,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 3:10 PM Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Le 23/09/2022 à 14:50, Geert Uytterhoeven a écrit :
> >>>>>>> Hi Jason,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 2:26 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 2:23 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +       if (rng_seed_record && rng_seed_record->size > sizeof(*rng_seed_record) + 2) {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +               u16 len = rng_seed_record->size - sizeof(*rng_seed_record) - 2;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +               get_random_bytes((u8 *)rng_seed_record->data + 2, len);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +               *(u16 *)rng_seed_record->data = len;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Storing the length should use the proper cpu_to_be16 accessor.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Okay, I'll do that for v2.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (Simply out of curiosity, why? Isn't m68k always big endian and this
> >>>>>>>> is arch/ code?)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes it is.  But virt_parse_bootinfo() below already uses the right
> >>>>>>> accessor.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> BTW, I guess people thought the same about PowerPC?
> >>>>>>> Although I agree the probability of someone creating a little-endian
> >>>>>>> m68k clone in an FPGA or SkyWater project and trying to run Linux on
> >>>>>>> it quite low ;-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The way I tested this is by having my initramfs just call
> >>>>>>>>>> `reboot(RB_AUTOBOOT);`, and having add_bootloader_randomness() print
> >>>>>>>>>> its contents to the console. I checked that it was both present and
> >>>>>>>>>> different every time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Are you sure the new kernel did receive the same randomness as prepared
> >>>>>>>>> by get_random_bytes()? I would expect it to just reboot into qemu,
> >>>>>>>>> reload the kernel from disk, and recreate a new bootinfo from scratch,
> >>>>>>>>> including generating a new random seed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes I'm sure. Without this patch, the new kernel sees the zeroed state.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's interesting.  So QEMU preserves the old bootinfo, which is
> >>>>>>> AFAIK not guaranteed to be still available (that's why I added
> >>>>>>> save_bootinfo()).  Perhaps that works because only memory starting
> >>>>>>> from a rounded-up value of _end will be used, and you're just lucky?
> >>>>>>> I'm wondering what else it preserves. It sure has to reload the
> >>>>>>> kernel image, as at least the data section will no longer contain the
> >>>>>>> initialization values after a reboot...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Laurent?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In QEMU the loader makes a copy of the kernel and the initrd and this copy is restored on a reset.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think there is a mechanism in QEMU to save the BOOTINFO section, so I think it works by
> >>>>>> luck. I will check.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Laurent
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you sure about that? Or at least, could you point me to where you
> >>>>> think this happens? I'm not as familiar as you with this code base,
> >>>>> but I really am not seeing it. So far as I can tell, on reset, the pc
> >>>>> and stack are reset to their initial places, after TCG resets the cpu
> >>>>> registers to a known state. But the kernel is not reloaded. The same
> >>>>> thing that was in memory before is used again.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, this is not clear in QEMU but I think this happens in rom_reset():
> >>>>
> >>>> hw/core/loader.c
> >>>>
> >>>> 1180         if (rom->mr) {
> >>>> 1181             void *host = memory_region_get_ram_ptr(rom->mr);
> >>>> 1182             memcpy(host, rom->data, rom->datasize);
> >>>> 1183             memset(host + rom->datasize, 0, rom->romsize - rom->datasize);
> >>>> 1184         } else {
> >>>> 1185             address_space_write_rom(rom->as, rom->addr, MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED,
> >>>> 1186                                     rom->data, rom->datasize);
> >>>> 1187             address_space_set(rom->as, rom->addr + rom->datasize, 0,
> >>>> 1188                               rom->romsize - rom->datasize,
> >>>> 1189                               MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED);
> >>>> 1190         }
> >>>>
> >>>> kernel and initrd are loaded with load_elf() and load_image_targphys() only once at startup by the
> >>>> machine init function (virt_init()).
> >>>>
> >>>> rom_add_elf_program() adds the kernel to the ROM list
> >>>> (in include/hw/elf_ops.h, glue(load_elf, SZ) that generates load_elf32() when SZ is 32...)
> >>>>
> >>>> rom_add_file() adds the initrd to the ROM list too.
> >>>>
> >>>> And ROMs are restored on reset from these copies by rom_reset().
> >>>>
> >>>> rom_reset() is registered as a reset handler with qemu_register_reset() by
> >>>> rom_check_and_register_reset() at the end of the machine creation by qdev_machine_creation_done().
> >>>>
> >>>> So I think bootinfo are not restored because there is no such function calls. Perhaps they are saved
> >>>> and restaured if they are stored in address space of one of the previous registered ROM.
> >>>
> >>> Ahh interesting, thanks for the explanation.
> >>>
> >>> So from my debugging, bootinfo is *not* restored, and the previous one
> >>> appears to be used. Fortunately it's intact and everything works well
> >>> on a reboot.
> >>>
> >>> With that in mind, we now we have to decide whether to:
> >>> A) Go with my linux patch to write the rng seed before rebooting (3/3
> >>> in v4 of that series).
> >>> B) Not go with the linux patch, but instead make sure bootinfo is
> >>> restored to its previous value, and then also register a qemu reboot
> >>> notifier to refresh the seed in it, like what x86 does.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I prefer B :)
> >> It's cleaner and under QEMU control.
> >
> > Okay. I'm happy to follow your preference. Just one last question,
> > though: is this what happens on baremetal bootloaders too? Or does no
> > such thing really exist so it doesn't matter?
>
> With a baremetal bootloader information are provided by the firmware.
>
> In our case, we don't have bootloader nor firmware as the kernel is loaded and started by QEMU.
> So QEMU must do the bootloader and the firmware actions. It's why I prefer B.

Okay, so on reboot, control goes back to firmware, which then supplies
fresh arguments and such. So QEMU should do the same. Makes sense.

Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists