linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] schemas: Add a schema for memory map

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: <CAPnjgZ1fjee3rf91onPbuLpgqTHe3dZgz0WBSzoiKAabO+ETkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:02:05 -0600
From:   Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Chiu Chasel <chasel.chiu@...el.com>,
        U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@...ts.denx.de>,
        Gua Guo <gua.guo@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>,
        ron minnich <rminnich@...il.com>,
        Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com>,
        Lean Sheng Tan <sheng.tan@...ements.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] schemas: Add a schema for memory map

Hi Ard,

On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 06:28, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 23:11, Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ard,
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 15:32, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 21:18, Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ard,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 03:10, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> ...
> > > > > In summary, I don't see why a non-UEFI payload would care about UEFI
> > > > > semantics for pre-existing memory reservations, or vice versa. Note
> > > > > that EDK2 will manage its own memory map, and expose it via UEFI boot
> > > > > services and not via DT.
> > > >
> > > > Bear in mind that one or both sides of this interface may be UEFI.
> > > > There is no boot-services link between the two parts that I have
> > > > outlined.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't understand what this means.
> > >
> > > UEFI specifies how one component invokes another, and it is not based
> > > on a DT binding. If the second component calls UEFI boot or runtime
> > > services, it should be invoked in this manner. If it doesn't, then it
> > > doesn't care about these memory reservations (and the OS will not be
> > > booted via UEFI either)
> > >
> > > So I feel I am missing something here. Perhaps a practical example
> > > would be helpful?
> >
> > Let's say we want to support these combinations:
> >
> > Platform Init -> Payload
> > --------------------------------
> > U-Boot -> Tianocore
> > coreboot -> U-Boot
> > Tianocore -> U-Boot
> > Tianocore -> Tianocore
> > U-Boot -> U-Boot
> >
> > Some of the above things have UEFI interfaces, some don't. But in the
> > case of Tianocore -> Tianocore we want things to work as if it were
> > Tianocore -> (its own handoff mechanism) Tiancore.
> >
>
> If Tianocore is the payload, it is either implemented as a EFI app, in
> which case it has access to EFI services, or it is not, in which case
> it doesn't care about UEFI semantics of the existing reserved regions,
> and it only needs to know which regions exist and which of those are
> reserved.
>
> And I think the same applies to all other rows in your table: either
> the existence of UEFI needs to be carried forward, which needs to be
> done via EFI services, or it doesn't, in which case the UEFI specific
> reservations can be dropped, and only reserved and available memory is
> relevant.
>
> > Some Platform Init may create runtime code which needs to accessible later.
> >
>
> But not UEFI runtime code, right? If the payload is not UEFI based,
> the OS would never be able to call that runtime code unless it is
> described in a different, non-UEFI way. This is fine, but it is not
> UEFI so we shouldn't call it UEFI runtime memory.
>
> > The way I think of it is that we need to generalise the memory map a
> > bit. Saying that you must use UEFI boot services to discover it is too
> > UEFI-specific.
> >
>
> What I am questioning is why a memory map with UEFI semantics is even
> relevant when those boot services do not exist.
>
> Could you be more specific about why a payload would have to be aware
> of the existence of UEFI boot/runtime service regions if it does not
> consume the UEFI interfaces of the platform init? And if the payload
> exposes UEFI services to the OS, why would it consume a memory map
> with UEFI semantics rather than a simple list of memblocks and memory
> reservations?

It seems like you are thinking of the Payload as grub, or something
like that? This is not about grub. If there are EFI boot services to
be provided, they are provided by the Payload, not Platform Init. I am
not that familiar with Tianocore, but if you are, perhaps think of it
as splitting Tianocore into two pieces, one of which inits the silicon
and the other which provides the EFI boot services.

Again, if you are familiar with Tianocore, it can be built either as a
monolithic whole, or as a coreboot Payload. The Payload part of the
code is (roughly) the same in each case. But the Platform Init is
different[1]

>
> Again, I am inclined to treat this as a firmware implementation
> detail, and the OS must never consume this binding. But I am still
> puzzled about what exact purpose it is expected to serve.

It really is purely so we can mix and match Platform Init (perhaps
silicon init is a more familiar term?) and the Payload.

Regards,
Simon

[1] Of course, coreboot uses blobs which are chunks of UEFI, but that
is a separate issue