linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] efi: pstore: Add module parameter for setting the record size

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:   Fri, 7 Oct 2022 15:19:15 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
        kernel@...ccoli.net, anton@...msg.org, ccross@...roid.com,
        tony.luck@...el.com, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] efi: pstore: Add module parameter for setting the
 record size

On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 at 15:00, Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@...lia.com> wrote:
>
> First of all, thanks Ard for the historical explanation!
>
>
> On 07/10/2022 06:11, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I think it'd be great to make it configurable! Ard, do you have any
> >> sense of what the max/min, etc, should be here?
> >>
> >
> > Given that dbx on an arbitrary EFI system with secure boot enabled is
> > already almost 4k, that seems like a reasonable default. As for the
> > upper bound, there is no way to know what weird firmware bugs you
> > might tickle by choosing highly unusual values here.
> >
> > If you need to store lots of data, you might want to look at [0] for
> > some work done in the past on using capsule update for preserving data
> > across a reboot. In the general case, this is not as useful, as the
> > capsule is only delivered to the firmware after invoking the
> > ResetSystem() EFI runtime service (as opposed to SetVariable() calls
> > taking effect immediately). However, if you need to capture large
> > amounts of data, and can tolerate the uncertainty involved in the
> > capsule approach, it might be a reasonable option.
> >
> > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200312011335.70750-1-qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com/
>
> So, you mean 4K as the default? I can change, but I would try to not
> mess with the current users, is there a case you can imagine something
> like 4k would fail? Maybe 2K is safer?
>

Reducing the number of writes 4x on systems that can support this has
its own advantages, so I am willing to risk it.

> As for the maximum, I've tested with many values, and when it's larger
> than ~30000 for edk2/ovmf, it fails with EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES and
> doesn't collect the log; other than that, no issues observed.
>

OVMF has

OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc:
gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdMaxVariableSize|0x2000
OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc:
gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdMaxVariableSize|0x8400

where the first one is without secure boot and the second with secure boot.

Interestingly, the default is

gEfiMdeModulePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdMaxVariableSize|0x400

so this is probably where this 1k number comes from. So perhaps it is
better to leave it at 1k after all :-(

> When set to ~24000, the interesting is that we have fewer big logs in
> /sys/fs/pstore, so it's nice to see compared to the bunch of 1K files heheh
>
> Anyway, let's agree on the default and then I can resubmit that, I'm
> glad you both consider that it's a good idea =)
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Guilherme