| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZtB2bP1Mx3zTr9e5@earth.li>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:23:56 +0100
From: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@...th.li>
To: ross.philipson@...cle.com
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, peterhuewe@....de,
jarkko@...nel.org, jgg@...pe.ca, luto@...capital.net,
nivedita@...m.mit.edu, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
davem@...emloft.net, corbet@....net, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 20/20] x86/efi: EFI stub DRTM launch support for
Secure Launch
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:19:16PM -0700, ross.philipson@...cle.com wrote:
> On 8/28/24 10:14 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 19:09, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ross,
> > >
> > > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
> > >
> > > [auto build test WARNING on tip/x86/core]
> > > [also build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing char-misc/char-misc-next char-misc/char-misc-linus herbert-cryptodev-2.6/master efi/next linus/master v6.11-rc5]
> > > [cannot apply to herbert-crypto-2.6/master next-20240828]
> > > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> > > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch*_base_tree_information__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmIxuz-LAC$ ]
> > >
> > > url: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Ross-Philipson/Documentation-x86-Secure-Launch-kernel-documentation/20240827-065225__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmI7Z6SQKy$
> > > base: tip/x86/core
> > > patch link: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240826223835.3928819-21-ross.philipson*40oracle.com__;JQ!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmIzWfs1XZ$
> > > patch subject: [PATCH v10 20/20] x86/efi: EFI stub DRTM launch support for Secure Launch
> > > config: i386-randconfig-062-20240828 (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240829/202408290030.FEbUhHbr-lkp@intel.com/config__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmIwkYG0TY$ )
> >
> >
> > This is a i386 32-bit build, which makes no sense: this stuff should
> > just declare 'depends on 64BIT'
>
> Our config entry already has 'depends on X86_64' which in turn depends on
> 64BIT. I would think that would be enough. Do you think it needs an explicit
> 'depends on 64BIT' in our entry as well?
The error is in x86-stub.c, which is pre-existing and compiled for 32
bit as well, so you need more than a "depends" here.
> > > compiler: clang version 18.1.5 (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmI2SDLdTN$ 617a15a9eac96088ae5e9134248d8236e34b91b1)
> > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240829/202408290030.FEbUhHbr-lkp@intel.com/reproduce__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmI5MJDdIG$ )
> > >
> > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> > > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> > > | Closes: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202408290030.FEbUhHbr-lkp@intel.com/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmI-MitiqR$
> > >
> > > sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
> > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/x86-stub.c:945:41: sparse: sparse: non size-preserving pointer to integer cast
> > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/x86-stub.c:953:65: sparse: sparse: non size-preserving pointer to integer cast
> > > > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/x86-stub.c:980:70: sparse: sparse: non size-preserving integer to pointer cast
> > > drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/x86-stub.c:1014:45: sparse: sparse: non size-preserving integer to pointer cast
> > >
> > > vim +945 drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/x86-stub.c
> > >
> > > 927
> > > 928 static bool efi_secure_launch_update_boot_params(struct slr_table *slrt,
> > > 929 struct boot_params *boot_params)
> > > 930 {
> > > 931 struct slr_entry_intel_info *txt_info;
> > > 932 struct slr_entry_policy *policy;
> > > 933 struct txt_os_mle_data *os_mle;
> > > 934 bool updated = false;
> > > 935 int i;
> > > 936
> > > 937 txt_info = slr_next_entry_by_tag(slrt, NULL, SLR_ENTRY_INTEL_INFO);
> > > 938 if (!txt_info)
> > > 939 return false;
> > > 940
> > > 941 os_mle = txt_os_mle_data_start((void *)txt_info->txt_heap);
> > > 942 if (!os_mle)
> > > 943 return false;
> > > 944
> > > > 945 os_mle->boot_params_addr = (u64)boot_params;
> > > 946
> > > 947 policy = slr_next_entry_by_tag(slrt, NULL, SLR_ENTRY_ENTRY_POLICY);
> > > 948 if (!policy)
> > > 949 return false;
> > > 950
> > > 951 for (i = 0; i < policy->nr_entries; i++) {
> > > 952 if (policy->policy_entries[i].entity_type == SLR_ET_BOOT_PARAMS) {
> > > 953 policy->policy_entries[i].entity = (u64)boot_params;
> > > 954 updated = true;
> > > 955 break;
> > > 956 }
> > > 957 }
> > > 958
> > > 959 /*
> > > 960 * If this is a PE entry into EFI stub the mocked up boot params will
> > > 961 * be missing some of the setup header data needed for the second stage
> > > 962 * of the Secure Launch boot.
> > > 963 */
> > > 964 if (image) {
> > > 965 struct setup_header *hdr = (struct setup_header *)((u8 *)image->image_base +
> > > 966 offsetof(struct boot_params, hdr));
> > > 967 u64 cmdline_ptr;
> > > 968
> > > 969 boot_params->hdr.setup_sects = hdr->setup_sects;
> > > 970 boot_params->hdr.syssize = hdr->syssize;
> > > 971 boot_params->hdr.version = hdr->version;
> > > 972 boot_params->hdr.loadflags = hdr->loadflags;
> > > 973 boot_params->hdr.kernel_alignment = hdr->kernel_alignment;
> > > 974 boot_params->hdr.min_alignment = hdr->min_alignment;
> > > 975 boot_params->hdr.xloadflags = hdr->xloadflags;
> > > 976 boot_params->hdr.init_size = hdr->init_size;
> > > 977 boot_params->hdr.kernel_info_offset = hdr->kernel_info_offset;
> > > 978 efi_set_u64_form(boot_params->hdr.cmd_line_ptr, boot_params->ext_cmd_line_ptr,
> > > 979 &cmdline_ptr);
> > > > 980 boot_params->hdr.cmdline_size = strlen((const char *)cmdline_ptr);
> > > 981 }
> > > 982
> > > 983 return updated;
> > > 984 }
> > > 985
> > >
> > > --
> > > 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KhkZK77BXRIR4F24tKkUeIlIrdqXtUW2vcnDV74c_5BmrQBQaQ4FqcDKKv9LB3HQUocTGkrmIy5kGTJf$
> > >
>
>
J.
--
101 things you can't have too | .''`. Debian GNU/Linux Developer
much of : 23 - Red Dwarf. | : :' : Happy to accept PGP signed
| `. `' or encrypted mail - RSA
| `- key on the keyservers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists