linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/efi: Safely enable unaccepted memory in UEFI

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: <20230116123057.wvr6rz7y3ubgcm5z@box.shutemov.name>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2023 15:30:57 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, jiewen.yao@...el.com, devel@...2.groups.io,
        Ard Biescheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "Min M. Xu" <min.m.xu@...el.org>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/efi: Safely enable unaccepted memory in UEFI

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:56:48AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 01:20:24AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:29:26PM +0000, Dionna Glaze wrote:
> > > This patch depends on Kirill A. Shutemov's series
> > > 
> > > [PATCHv8 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory
> > > 
> > > The UEFI v2.9 specification includes a new memory type to be used in
> > > environments where the OS must accept memory that is provided from its
> > > host. Before the introduction of this memory type, all memory was
> > > accepted eagerly in the firmware. In order for the firmware to safely
> > > stop accepting memory on the OS's behalf, the OS must affirmatively
> > > indicate support to the firmware.
> > 
> > I think it is a bad idea.
> > 
> > This approach breaks use case with a bootloader between BIOS and OS.
> > As the bootloader does ExitBootServices() it has to make the call on
> > behalf of OS when it has no idea if the OS supports unaccepted.
> 
> Nothing breaks, it'll error on the safe side.  If the protocol callback
> is not called the firmware will simply accept all memory.  The guest OS
> will only see unaccepted memory if it explicitly asked for it (assuming
> the firmware wants know to support both cases, of course the firmware
> could also enforce the one or the other and just not offer the
> protocol).

How bootloader suppose to know if OS will ask for unaccepted memory?
It can't. It means the use-case with bootloader cannot ever use
unaccepted memory. That's broken design.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov