linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] efi/memattr: Use desc_size instead of total size to check for corruption

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: <CAMj1kXGYsJrqDzy_+g_wSAAEuQ_OnxvyJ8ZE+4gbr6KOY7iuow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 08:21:21 +0100
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...2.groups.io, kexec@...ts.infradead.org, 
	hannes@...xchg.org, dyoung@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, leitao@...ian.org, gourry@...rry.net, 
	kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] efi/memattr: Use desc_size instead of total size to
 check for corruption

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 at 17:36, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 09/01/2025 15:45, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 at 23:00, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The commit in [1] introduced a check to see if EFI memory attributes
> >> table was corrupted. It assumed that efi.memmap.nr_map remains
> >> constant, but it changes during late boot.
> >> Hence, the check is valid during cold boot, but not in the subsequent
> >> kexec boot.
> >>
> >> This is best explained with an exampled. At cold boot, for a test
> >> machine:
> >> efi.memmap.nr_map=91,
> >> memory_attributes_table->num_entries=48,
> >> desc_size = 48
> >> Hence, the check introduced in [1] where 3x the size of the
> >> entire EFI memory map is a reasonable upper bound for the size of this
> >> table is valid.
> >>
> >> In late boot __efi_enter_virtual_mode calls 2 functions that updates
> >> efi.memmap.nr_map:
> >> - efi_map_regions which reduces the `count` of map entries
> >>   (for e.g. if should_map_region returns false) and which is reflected
> >>   in efi.memmap by __efi_memmap_init.
> >>   At this point efi.memmap.nr_map becomes 46 in the test machine.
> >> - efi_free_boot_services which also reduces the number of memory regions
> >>   available (for e.g. if md->type or md->attribute is not the right value).
> >>   At this point efi.memmap.nr_map becomes 9 in the test machine.
> >> Hence when you kexec into a new kernel and pass efi.memmap, the
> >> paramaters that are compared are:
> >> efi.memmap.nr_map=9,
> >> memory_attributes_table->num_entries=48,
> >> desc_size = 48
> >> where the check in [1] is no longer valid with such a low efi.memmap.nr_map
> >> as it was reduced due to efi_map_regions and efi_free_boot_services.
> >>
> >> A more appropriate check is to see if the description size reported by
> >> efi and memory attributes table is the same.
> >>
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241031175822.2952471-2-ardb+git@google.com/
> >>
> >> Fixes: 8fbe4c49c0cc ("efi/memattr: Ignore table if the size is clearly bogus")
> >> Reported-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/firmware/efi/memattr.c | 16 ++++++----------
> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >
> > The more I think about this, the more I feel that kexec on x86 should
> > simply discard this table, and run with the firmware code RWX (which
> > is not the end of the world).
>
>
> By discard this table, do you mean kexec not use e820_table_firmware?

No, I mean kexec ignores the memory attributes table.

> Also a very basic question, what do you mean by run with the firmware RWX?
>

The memory attributes table is an overlay for the EFI memory map that
describes which runtime code regions may be mapped with restricted
permissions. Without this table, everything will be mapped writable as
well as executable, but only in the EFI page tables, which are only
active when an EFI call is in progress.

> Sorry for the very basic questions above!
>

No worries.