Messages in this thread | | | From | David Howells <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/8] efi: Get the secure boot status [ver #6] | Date | Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:39:18 +0000 |
| |
Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan, at 03:27:23PM, David Howells wrote: > > Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > + movb $0, BP_secure_boot(%rsi) > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_EFI_STUB > > > > /* > > > > * The entry point for the PE/COFF executable is efi_pe_entry, so > > > > > > Is clearing ::secure_boot really necessary? Any code path that goes > > > via efi_main() will set it correctly and all other code paths should > > > get it cleared in sanitize_boot_params(), no? > > > > No. > > > > The boot_params->secure_boot parameter exists whether or not efi_main() is > > traversed (ie. if EFI isn't enabled or CONFIG_EFI_STUB=n) and, if not cleared, > > is of uncertain value. > > > > Further, sanitize_boot_params() has to be modified by this patch so as not to > > clobber the secure_boot flag. > > Any new parameters that boot loaders do not know about should be > cleared to zero by default in the boot loader because boot_params > itself should be zero'd when allocated.
Do you mean the boot loader or the boot wrapper? If the loader, that is outside my control - and given the purpose of the value, I'm not sure I want to rely on that.
> There are two cases to consider: > > 1) boot_params is not zero'd > 2) boot_params is zero'd > > 1) This is a broken boot loader implementation that violates the x86 > boot specification and I would never expect ->secure_boot to have a > valid value.
If there's a boot specification that must be complied with, why does sanitize_boot_params() even exist? Why does the comment on it say:
* Deal with bootloaders which fail to initialize unknown fields in * boot_params to zero. The list fields in this list are taken from * analysis of kexec-tools; if other broken bootloaders initialize a * different set of fields we will need to figure out how to disambiguate.
> It should not be special-cased in sanitize_boot_params(), it should be > zero'd.
Sigh. sanitize_boot_params() is part of the problem. The startup sequence goes something like this:
(0) We enter the boot wrapper.
(1) We clear the secure-boot status value [my patch adds this].
(2) The boot wrapper *may* invoke efi_main() - which will determine the secure-boot status.
(3) The boot wrapper calls extract_kernel() to decompress the kernel.
(4) extract_kernel() calls sanitize_boot_params() which would otherwise clear the secure-boot flag.
(5) The boot wrapper jumps into the main kernel image, which now does not see the secure boot status value we calculated.
So, no, sanitize_boot_params() must *not* zero the value unless we change the call point for s_b_p().
> 2) In this case ->secure_boot should be zero unless modified inside of > efi_main().
I have no idea whether this is guaranteed or not.
> Did you hit the scenario where ->secure_boot has a garbage value while > developing these patches? I wouldn't expect to see it in practice.
I haven't actually checked what the value was before I cleared it. But, I've found that security people get seriously paranoid about assuming things to be implicitly so;-).
David
| |