Message-ID: <8613563a-ee7c-4271-b1f0-4d1ac365ad3a@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 10:53:53 +0000
From: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
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 10/01/2025 07:21, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> 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 where the check in [1] is no longer valid with such a low efi.memmap.nr_map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.
> 

Thanks for explaining!

So basically get rid of memattr.c :)

Do you mean get rid of it only for kexec, or not do it for any
boot (including cold boot)?
I do like this idea! I couldn't find this in the git history,
but do you know if this was added in the linux kernel just
because EFI spec added support for it, or if there was a
specific security problem?

Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists