lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the PE-COFF header
From
On April 13, 2017 8:51:19 PM PDT, Gary Lin <glin@suse.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:21:20PM -0700, hpa@zytor.com wrote:
>> On April 11, 2017 3:20:41 AM PDT, Gary Lin <glin@suse.com> wrote:
>> >This commit adds the new config options to allow the user to modify
>the
>> >following fields in the PE-COFF header.
>> >
>> >UINT16 MajorOperatingSystemVersion
>> >UINT16 MinorOperatingSystemVersion
>> >UINT16 MajorImageVersion
>> >UINT16 MinorImageVersion
>> >
>> >Those fields are mainly for the executables or libraries in Windows
>NT
>> >or higher to specify the minimum supported Windows version and the
>> >version of the image itself.
>> >
>> >Given the fact that those fields are ignored in UEFI, we can safely
>> >reuse
>> >those fields for other purposes, e.g. Security Version(*).
>> >
>> >(*) https://github.com/lcp/shim/wiki/Security-Version
>> >
>> >Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> >Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
>> >Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
>> >Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
>> >Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>
>> >Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
>> >Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
>> >Cc: Joey Lee <jlee@suse.com>
>> >Cc: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>
>> >Signed-off-by: Gary Lin <glin@suse.com>
>> >Tested-by: Joey Lee <jlee@suse.com>
>> >---
>[snip]
>>
>> Reusing PECOFF fields seems doubleplusunsafe: we don't own those
>fields, the UEFI forum does. It would make a lot more sense to add
>these fields to the bzImage header directly or indirectly (via a
>pointer), the latter would be more economical since the bzImage header
>size is bounded.
>>
>> We could even define it as a pointer to a "security information
>header" with its own size field, so it can be grown in the future as
>needed.
>Reusing PE-COFF simplifies the implementation since shim can parse the
>header directly. I can raise the issue to the UEFI forum to clarify the
>usage of those fields.
>
>Meanwhile, I'll also look into the bzImage header in case the PE-COFF
>header is really a NO-GO.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gary Lin

If we are going to use the PE-COFF hear then you need to write a proposal and get the UEFI forum to sign off on it.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-14 07:22    [W:0.059 / U:0.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site