On 10 September 2015 at 15:22, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FWIW I gave this a spin on Seattle and Juno and saw no regressions (both
> are pre-2.5 EFI though).
>
Thanks!
> I have some concerns below.
>
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:06:54AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> The new Properties Table feature introduced in UEFIv2.5 may split
>> memory regions that cover PE/COFF memory images into separate code
>> and data regions. Since these regions only differ in the type (runtime
>> code vs runtime data) and the permission bits, but not in the memory
>> type attributes (UC/WC/WT/WB), the spec does not require them to be
>> aligned to 64 KB.
>
> We should require those to be 64k-aligned for permissions too. I can
> imagine vendors getting permissions wrong but things happening to work
> for a 64k kernel (where I assume we have to use the superset of all
> permissions within a 64k page).
>
Indeed. But note that this patch is /only/ about interoperability with
the current version of the spec. This is not the venue for discussing
improvements in upcoming versions.
>> As the relative offset of PE/COFF .text and .data segments cannot be
>> changed on the fly, this means that we can no longer pad out those
>> regions to be mappable using 64 KB pages.
>> Unfortunately, there is no annotation in the UEFI memory map that
>> identifies data regions that were split off from a code region, so we
>> must apply this logic to all adjacent runtime regions whose attributes
>> only differ in the permission bits.
>>
>> So instead of rounding each memory region to 64 KB alignment at both
>> ends, only round down regions that are not directly preceded by another
>> runtime region with the same type attributes. Since the UEFI spec does
>> not mandate that the memory map be sorted, this means we also need to
>> sort it first.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> As discussed off list, this is the arm64 side of what we should backport
>> to stable to prevent firmware that adheres to the current version of the
>> UEFI v2.5 spec with the memprotect feature enabled from blowing up the system
>> upon the first OS call into the runtime services.
>>
>> For arm64, we already map things in order, but since the spec does not mandate
>> a sorted memory map, we need to sort it to be sure. This also allows us to
>> easily find adjacent regions with < 64 KB granularity, which the current version
>> of the spec allows if they only differ in permission bits (which the spec says
>> are 'unused' on AArch64, which could be interpreted as 'allowed but ignored').
>>
>> Changes since v1:
>> - Ensure that we don't inadvertently set the XN bit on the preceding region at
>> mapping time if we the OS is running with >4 KB pages.
>>
>> arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c | 3 +-
>> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm-stub.c | 62 +++++++++++++++-----
>> 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
>> index e8ca6eaedd02..13671a9cf016 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
>> @@ -258,7 +258,8 @@ static bool __init efi_virtmap_init(void)
>> */
>> if (!is_normal_ram(md))
>> prot = __pgprot(PROT_DEVICE_nGnRE);
>> - else if (md->type == EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE)
>> + else if (md->type == EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE ||
>> + !PAGE_ALIGNED(md->phys_addr))
>> prot = PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC;
>
> This looks coarser than necessary. For memory organised like:
>
> 0x00000000 - 0x0000F000 (60KiB) : EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE
> 0x0000F000 - 0x00020000 (68KiB) : EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA
>
> We should be able to make the last 64K non-executable, but with this all
> 128K is executable, unless I've missed something?
>
In theory, yes. But considering that
a) this only affects 64 KB pages kernels, and
b) this patch is intended for -stable
I chose to keep it simple and ignore this, and just relax the
permissions for any region that is not aligned to 64 KB.
Since these regions are only mapped during Runtime Services calls, the
window for abuse is not that large.
> Maybe we could do a two-step pass, first mapping the data as
> not-executable, then mapping any code pages executable (overriding any
> overlapping portions, but only for the overlapping parts).
>
Let me have a go at that.
>> else
>> prot = PAGE_KERNEL;
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm-stub.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm-stub.c
>> index e29560e6b40b..cb4e9c4de952 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm-stub.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm-stub.c
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>> */
>>
>> #include <linux/efi.h>
>> +#include <linux/sort.h>
>
> Sort isn't an inline in this header. I thought it wasn't safe to call
> arbitary kernel functions from the stub?
>
We call string functions, cache maintenance functions, libfdt
functions etc etc so it seems not everyone got the memo :-)
I agree that treating vmlinux both as a static library and as a
payload from the stub's pov is a bit sloppy, and I do remember
discussing this, but for the life of me, I can't remember the exact
issue, other than the use of adrp/add and adrp/ldr pairs, which we
fixed by setting the PE/COFF section alignment to 4 KB.
>> #include <asm/efi.h>
>>
>> #include "efistub.h"
>> @@ -305,6 +306,13 @@ fail:
>> */
>> #define EFI_RT_VIRTUAL_BASE 0x40000000
>>
>> +static int cmp_mem_desc(const void *a, const void *b)
>> +{
>> + const efi_memory_desc_t *left = a, *right = b;
>> +
>> + return (left->phys_addr > right->phys_addr) ? 1 : -1;
>> +}
>
> Nit: please chose names to make the relationship between these clearer.
> e.g. s/left/mem_a/, s/right/mem_b/.
>
OK, I can do that.
>> +
>> /*
>> * efi_get_virtmap() - create a virtual mapping for the EFI memory map
>> *
>> @@ -316,34 +324,58 @@ void efi_get_virtmap(efi_memory_desc_t *memory_map, unsigned long map_size,
>> unsigned long desc_size, efi_memory_desc_t *runtime_map,
>> int *count)
>> {
>> + static const u64 mem_type_mask = EFI_MEMORY_WB | EFI_MEMORY_WT |
>> + EFI_MEMORY_WC | EFI_MEMORY_UC |
>> + EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME;
>> +
>> u64 efi_virt_base = EFI_RT_VIRTUAL_BASE;
>> - efi_memory_desc_t *out = runtime_map;
>> + efi_memory_desc_t *in, *prev = NULL, *out = runtime_map;
>> int l;
>>
>> - for (l = 0; l < map_size; l += desc_size) {
>> - efi_memory_desc_t *in = (void *)memory_map + l;
>> + /*
>> + * To work around potential issues with the Properties Table feature
>> + * introduced in UEFI 2.5, which may split PE/COFF executable images
>> + * in memory into several RuntimeServicesCode and RuntimeServicesData
>> + * regions, we need to preserve the relative offsets between adjacent
>> + * EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME regions with the same memory type attributes.
>> + * The easiest way to find adjacent regions is to sort the memory map
>> + * before traversing it.
>> + */
>> + sort(memory_map, map_size / desc_size, desc_size, cmp_mem_desc, NULL);
>> +
>> + for (l = 0; l < map_size; l += desc_size, prev = in) {
>> u64 paddr, size;
>>
>> + in = (void *)memory_map + l;
>> if (!(in->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME))
>> continue;
>>
>> + paddr = in->phys_addr;
>> + size = in->num_pages * EFI_PAGE_SIZE;
>> +
>> /*
>> * Make the mapping compatible with 64k pages: this allows
>> * a 4k page size kernel to kexec a 64k page size kernel and
>> * vice versa.
>> */
>> - paddr = round_down(in->phys_addr, SZ_64K);
>> - size = round_up(in->num_pages * EFI_PAGE_SIZE +
>> - in->phys_addr - paddr, SZ_64K);
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * Avoid wasting memory on PTEs by choosing a virtual base that
>> - * is compatible with section mappings if this region has the
>> - * appropriate size and physical alignment. (Sections are 2 MB
>> - * on 4k granule kernels)
>> - */
>> - if (IS_ALIGNED(in->phys_addr, SZ_2M) && size >= SZ_2M)
>> - efi_virt_base = round_up(efi_virt_base, SZ_2M);
>> + if (!prev ||
>> + ((prev->attribute ^ in->attribute) & mem_type_mask) != 0 ||
>> + paddr != (prev->phys_addr + prev->num_pages * EFI_PAGE_SIZE)) {
>> +
>
> This looks correct, though slightly painful to read. It might be nicer
> with helpers helpers like descs_have_same_attrs and
> descs_are_contiguous.
>
I can do that too. I agree it reads a bit more difficult than necessary.
Thanks,
Ard.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
