| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 09:42:41 +0100
From: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] firmware: Add support for Qualcomm UEFI Secure
Application
On 1/17/23 09:24, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 12:49:48AM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>> On platforms using the Qualcomm UEFI Secure Application (uefisecapp),
>> EFI variables cannot be accessed via the standard interface in EFI
>> runtime mode. The respective functions return EFI_UNSUPPORTED. On these
>> platforms, we instead need to talk to uefisecapp. This commit provides
>> support for this and registers the respective efivars operations to
>> access EFI variables from the kernel.
>>
>> Communication with uefisecapp follows the standard Qualcomm Trusted
>> Environment (TEE or TrEE) / Secure OS conventions via the respective SCM
>> call interface. This is also the reason why variable access works
>> normally while boot services are active. During this time, said SCM
>> interface is managed by the boot services. When calling
>> ExitBootServices(), the ownership is transferred to the kernel.
>> Therefore, UEFI must not use that interface itself (as multiple parties
>> accessing this interface at the same time may lead to complications) and
>> cannot access variables for us.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
>> ---
>
>> +static struct platform_driver qcom_uefisecapp_driver = {
>> + .probe = qcom_uefisecapp_probe,
>> + .remove = qcom_uefisecapp_remove,
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = "qcom_tee_uefisecapp",
>> + .of_match_table = qcom_uefisecapp_dt_match,
>> + .probe_type = PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS,
>> + },
>> +};
>> +module_platform_driver(qcom_uefisecapp_driver);
>
> I noticed that for efivarfs to work, you're currently relying on having
> the firmware still claim that the variable services are supported in the
> RT_PROP table so that efi core registers the default ops at subsys init
> time (which are later overridden by this driver).
>
> Otherwise efivarfs may fail to initialise when built in:
>
> static __init int efivarfs_init(void)
> {
> if (!efivars_kobject())
> return -ENODEV;
>
> return register_filesystem(&efivarfs_type);
> }
>
> module_init(efivarfs_init);
>
> With recent X13s firmware the corresponding bit in the RT_PROP table has
> been cleared so that efivarfs would fail to initialise. Similar problem
> when booting with 'efi=noruntime'.
>
> One way to handle this is to register also the qcom_uefisecapp_driver at
> subsys init time and prevent it from being built as a module (e.g. as is
> done for the SCM driver). I'm using the below patch for this currently.
>
> I guess the Google GSMI implementation suffers from a similar problem.
Oh right, thanks for that tip!
I'll try to include that in v2 then. I'll also try to test that case
specifically.
Regards,
Max
> From 8fecce12d215bd8cab1b8c8f9f0d1e1fe20fe6e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2023 15:32:34 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] firmware: qcom_tee_uefisecapp: register at subsys init
>
> Register efivars at subsys init time so that it is available when
> efivarfs probes. For the same reason, also prevent building the driver
> as a module.
>
> This is specifically needed on platforms such as the Lenovo Thinkpad
> X13s where the firmware has cleared the variable services in the RT_PROP
> table so that efi core does not register any efivar callbacks at subsys
> init time (which are later overridden).
>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/Kconfig | 2 +-
> drivers/firmware/qcom_tee_uefisecapp.c | 7 ++++++-
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/Kconfig b/drivers/firmware/Kconfig
> index 4e9e2c227899..48e712e363da 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/Kconfig
> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ config QCOM_TEE
> select QCOM_SCM
>
> config QCOM_TEE_UEFISECAPP
> - tristate "Qualcomm TrEE UEFI Secure App client driver"
> + bool "Qualcomm TrEE UEFI Secure App client driver"
> select QCOM_TEE
> depends on EFI
> help
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom_tee_uefisecapp.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom_tee_uefisecapp.c
> index 65573e4b815a..e83bce4da70a 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom_tee_uefisecapp.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom_tee_uefisecapp.c
> @@ -754,7 +754,12 @@ static struct platform_driver qcom_uefisecapp_driver = {
> .probe_type = PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS,
> },
> };
> -module_platform_driver(qcom_uefisecapp_driver);
> +
> +static int __init qcom_uefisecapp_init(void)
> +{
> + return platform_driver_register(&qcom_uefisecapp_driver);
> +}
> +subsys_initcall(qcom_uefisecapp_init);
>
> MODULE_AUTHOR("Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>");
> MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Client driver for Qualcomm TrEE/TZ UEFI Secure App");
Powered by blists - more mailing lists