On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 04:21:32PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 16:16, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 09:12:29AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Commit ef5a7b5eb13e ("efi/x86: Remove GDT setup from efi_main")
> > > > introduced GDT setup into the 32-bit kernel's startup_32, and reloads
> > > > the GDTR after relocating the kernel for paranoia's sake.
> > > >
> > > > Commit 32d009137a56 ("x86/boot: Reload GDTR after copying to the end of
> > > > the buffer") introduced a similar GDTR reload in the 64-bit kernel.
> > > >
> > > > The GDTR is adjusted by init_size - _end, however this may not be the
> > > > correct offset to apply if the kernel was loaded at a misaligned address
> > > > or below LOAD_PHYSICAL_ADDR, as in that case the decompression buffer
> > > > has an additional offset from the original load address.
> > > >
> > > > This should never happen for a conformant bootloader, but we're being
> > > > paranoid anyway, so just store the new GDT address in there instead of
> > > > adding any offsets, which is simpler as well.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Fixes: ef5a7b5eb13e ("efi/x86: Remove GDT setup from efi_main")
> > > > Fixes: 32d009137a56 ("x86/boot: Reload GDTR after copying to the end of the buffer")
> > >
> > > Have you or anyone else observed this condition practice, or have a
> > > suspicion that this could happen - or is this a mostly theoretical
> > > concern?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Ingo
> >
> > Right now it's a theoretical concern.
> >
> > I'm working on another patch, to tell the EFI firmware PE loader what
> > the kernel's preferred address is, so that we can avoid having to
> > relocate the kernel in the EFI stub in most cases (ie if the PE loader
> > manages to load us at that address). With those changes, the required
> > adjustment won't be init_size - _end any more, and while fixing it up
> > there, I noticed that it could already be the case that the required
> > adjustment is different.
> >
>
> Do you mean setting the image address in the PE/COFF header to the
> preferred address?
Yep. I'm doing that and then making a few adjustments to the PE entry
code and head_* so that it can decompress starting at image_base instead
of startup_32.
