Hey Ard, Apologies for the lag in response, I wanted to have this to you sooner, but between a variety of events and working on building consensus on how to address your comments made it drag out a little. Before reading this message, I would recommend reading the proposal posted to the top of this thread, as it details an approach that builds on Matthew's callback proposal along with addressing your concerns with measurements. In this message, I want to provide you direct answers to the points you raised independent of the reply at the top of this thread to help map where your concerns influenced the proposal. On 3/31/22 03:13, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 02:36, Daniel P. Smith > <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Greetings Matthew, >> >> First thank you to you and James for taking time out of your busy >> schedules to sit down with us and work through all of this. >> >> Hey Ard, >> >> On 3/30/22 03:02, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:>> 1) From an EFI maintainer >> perspective, is making the contract between >>>> the boot stub and the kernel explicit viable? >>>> >>> >>> No. The direction of travel has been to define EFI boot only in terms >>> of the handover from the loader to the stub. What happens next is up >>> to the architecture, and is deliberately not specified, because it is >>> considered to be internal Linux ABI. We've deviated from this once for >>> Xen on ARM, but this means we have already painted ourselves into a >>> corner when it comes the way we use DT internally at the handover >>> point between stub and kernel proper, and I am not eager to repeat >>> that. Locking down the stub-to-kernel protocol for all architectures >>> is not the way to go. >> >> To help provide some visual context, for EFI today there is, >> >> bzImage >> [EFI boot manager] -> [[efi-stub] -> [setup kernel] -> [main kernel]] >> >> Where the efi-stub is responsible for interacting with firmware to >> configure the system, store that configuration for the setup kernel and >> the main kernel, and then call EBS before entering the setup kernel. >> >> For Secure Launch the flow (on Intel) is, >> >> CPU instruction bzImage >> [preamble] -> [ACM] -> [[sl-stub] -> [setup kernel] -> [main kernel]] >> >> In order to make the CPU instruction call to enter the ACM the system >> must be in a very specific quiescent state. This includes but not >> exhaustively, >> * EBS must have been called >> * TPM should have all localities closed >> * IOMMU PMRs must be programmed appropriately >> * TXT heap space allocated >> * TXT heap space populated with config structures >> * All APs must be in a specific idle state >> * Execution is on the BSP >> Carrying all this out is what is considered the DRTM preamble. >> > > Thanks for the explanation, this is really helpful. Your welcome. >> This is the wrinkle because the setup kernel and main kernel are both >> predicated on the efi-stub and the efi-stub is predicated on running >> before EBS. > > Matthew suggested this already, but can you explain why handling this > in a callback is not an option? I'd by sympathetic to specifying a > Linux specific protocol that can be grabbed before EBS() but can be > invoked after (but not, say after SetVirtualAddressMap(), to keep > things simple). That should allow us to call back into firmware to > perform the secure launch right before handing over. Apologies, I was not meaning to suggest this was not an option. As you can see in the proposal posted, this approach is in fact being embraced. It is not explicit stated in the proposal, but the approach for the Secure Launch spec is to not explicitly dictate the location of the DL Handler. If a firmware manufacturer wants to implement a Secure Launch compliant DL Handler in firmware, this certainly would be welcomed, but should not be a requirement to enable Secure Launch. For instance, in the prototype the DL Handler is actually implemented as a stub in the setup kernel as that is the direction we are moving towards but may not be how the final implementation works. > My other suggestion, to use a minimal EFI environment just to boot the > kernel, still seems viable to me as well, but it would boil down to > mostly the same, thing, i.e., to inject an intermediate boot stage > between the call to the firmware's EBS() and calling the entrypoint of > the kernel proper. What I do like about this approach is that the EFI > stub could execute unprivileged, which means the secure launch kernel > could track *exactly* what the EFI stub is doing in terms of memory > accesses and protocol invocations, which seems a bit more robust than > the approximation of 'this might be interesting enough to measure' > that the industry seems to have settled on. IMHO that is the beauty of the Secure Launch spec. Just as you suggest, your EFI environment shim could track what the EFI stub does and record it in the SLRT. In addition, your shim could also implement the DL Handler to invoke the Dynamic Launch. >> So how can this wrinkle be addressed? The TrenchBoot project >> proposed that the information collected by the efi-stub be formally >> documented for two reasons, 1. to allow the sl-stub to be aware of what >> and where all external data is being injected into the kernel so any >> data that may be security critical could be measured, and 2. it would >> allow third parties, e.g. GRUB, could correctly configure the system, >> pass all EFI related information correctly to the setup kernel and the >> main kernel before executing the preamble. Where the former is more of a >> concern than enabling the latter. >> > > The reason I am not willing to lock down the stub<->kernel boot > protocol is because it doesn't scale: currently, the discussion is > about x86, which is a bit different because we already so many ways to > boot it, but for other architectures, this is going to create a huge > maintenance burden: arm64, RISC-V and now LoongArch are all adding EFI > boot support and are looking to support ACPI, SMBIOS and other > features as well, and these are all gated on EFI boot, which requires > booting via the stub. As I mentioned in the Secure Launch spec proposal, it was not correct for us to seek that the efi-stub<->kernel interface to be standardized. The reality is that Secure Launch is an entrypoint itself and like the efi-stub should provide an interface specifying how and what needs to be provided to it for it to function correctly. > I'm not eager to kick this can down the road and go with something > that inevitably implies either specifying and maintaining a whole > array of internal protocols as external ABI, or revisiting this > discussion and coming up with two different ways to do DRTM depending > on whether you are running x86 or not. Agreed, which is why we went back and worked on what is the proper way to address this problem. As has been mentioned many times, while x86 may have the most mature Dynamic Launch capability, it is not the only platform with Dynamic Launch. The goal for TrenchBoot is to provide a common experience, to the extent possible, for using Dynamic Launch across the different platforms that provide the capability. And to be clear, that is especially true for different environments on the same architecture. Specifically, we want setup and configuration to be the same on x86 coreboot and x86 UEFI. >> Relating to what information is security critical, this can be a bit >> subjective. For example Dave Weston has a twitter thread[1][2][3] over >> what state Azure Attestation can validate for a DRTM Windows system. >> This reflects what Microsoft believes it's customers will want to >> validate about a Windows system before accessing services and data >> stored in Azure. For Linux Secure Launch measuring everything would >> obviously provide the finest grain of assertions regarding how the >> kernel was configured to run but that comes at the expense that is >> incurred for taking the measurements. To date the selection of >> measurements have been an attempt of balancing the most meaningful >> measurements with how many measurements should be taken. For instance it >> would be possible to hash the SRTM (firmware) TPM event log to provide >> an assertion of what its contents were at dynamic launch. Is that a >> meaningful measurement? Not necessarily since there are other means to >> validate the log but there is likely someone who is super cautious and >> would like to see the extra layer of validation. >> > > So how will the above translate into meaningful and fair feedback in > response to proposed changes to this documented stub<->kernel handover > protocol, once the need arrives to make changes? Is this super > cautious person going to be the one NAKing everything just because he > is super cautious? There is only a mentioning of it in the proposal, but for the Secure Launch specification there will be a policy entry that will remove the need for having what will be measured codified in the kernel. It will allow measurement mechanisms to be implemented in the sl-stub and the policy will allow the selection and configuration of the mechanisms. > Pardon the skepticism, but I am really reluctant to let this cat out > of the bag if the requirements are so vague and there doesn't seem to > consensus on the scope of DRTM. I would say the scope is no less vague than it is for efi-stub. UEFI and kernel features will increase that will change the behavior of the kernel and affect its ability to protect information within the system. As this changes, DRTM will need to be able to measure this expansion so that it may be able to assert the system state/abilities to a user, a cloud or an enterprise. > Another thing I missed is how these systems are supposed to carry out > the tasks that the stub currently handles: Matt mentioned setting > MemoryOverwriteRequest, but there is also TPM event log handling, and > other bits and pieces. Are you saying this is all going to be part of > this boot protocol as well? This is no longer an issue with the new proposal. >>>> 2) If so, is it desirable? >>>> >>>> 3) If either (1) or (2) is "no", is it reasonable to ensure that all >>>> potentially security-critical state or configuration changes to the >>>> boot stub are reviewed by DRTM people to verify whether the secure >>>> launch code needs to be updated to match? >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better for the secure launch kernel to boot the EFI >>> entrypoint directly? As it happens, I just completed a PoC last week >>> for a minimal implementation of EFI (in Rust) that only carries the >>> pieces that the EFI stub needs to boot Linux. It is currently just a >>> proof of concept that only works on QEMU/arm64, but it should not be >>> too hard to adapt it for x86 and for booting a kernel that has already >>> been loaded to memory. >> >> IIUC, as you can see above, entering the efi-stub from the dynamic >> launch will fail because EBS will have been called. >> > > I think you are missing my point here, tbh. What I am suggesting here > is to run a separate, minimal EFI implementation, which has its own > EBS() which is unrelated to the firmware one. Matthew pointed out some > issues with this approach, but the fundamental idea is that it is just > an impedance matcher that looks like EFI to the EFI stub, but is > really just a loader with a memory map and some config tables. I apologize, but I read "Wouldn't it be better for the secure launch kernel to boot the EFI entrypoint directly?" to mean that you would be looking for EFI entrypoint to be called by the Dyanmic Launch. If that is the case, then again I am not sure how you would make this work as is suggested. Let me clarify a little further on how Dynamic Launch hardware works. When the Dynamic Launch CPU instruction is called by the preamble, the system enters a new type of execution state, on Intel it is literally a separate CPU mode referred to as SMX. A very simplistic way to think of this is that the system has gone through a soft warm boot, but everything is now different. Instead of coming in through the reset vector, the system will jump to the DLME entrypoint that was registered during the preamble. There will be DMA protections in place protecting the regions specified during the preamble, and the CPU will function in a slightly different manner. For instance the AP rendezvous procedure has to be done differently, if a standard INIT-SIPI-SIPI rendezvous is attempted the system will fault. In the end, this is done to ensure to the best ability that the system is in a proper state and the only software executing is that which was measured by the CPU. It is a bit impressive what the CPU does, and for Intel CPUs there is a fair amount of detail documented under the SDM documentation for GETSEC[SENTER] [1]. This is one of the reasons there is a fair bit of assembly in the secure launch patch series, as there is a very specific way in which the system needs to be brought up from the minimal state it is left in by the GETSEC[SENTER] instruction to a state that the setup kernel is able to take control. This might be made to work by making this EFI shim capable of being entered by the Dynamic Launch and then call into the efi-stub. But tbh this is a non-starter from our perspective as this would then force all x86 environments to run this EFI shim, specifically coreboot environments. Just as Linux-EFI is not being pushed to work like a non-efi environment for Dynamic Launch, it would not be fair to force non-EFI environments to function like an EFI environment. As suggested above, under the Secure Launch spec proposal, the EFI shim would work very well as a preamble environment that implements the Secure Launch spec. [1] https://github.com/HJLebbink/asm-dude/wiki/GETSEC%5BSENTER%5D > The requirement for this came up in the confidential computing space, > but for bare metal, it seems having a tiny EFI-like shim that can only > boot a Linux kernel (or other EFI-like payloads with no dependencies > on the driver model or other UEFI/PI bloat) might be useful here as > well, especially because it would be completely generic from the EFI > side of things, as opposed to creating yet another project with > intimate knowledge of struct bootparams, device trees, where in memory > the kernel may be loaded on architecture X, where in memory the initrd > may be loaded on architecture X, etc etc. > > So the bottom line is that we will have to make this work with EFI > boot one way or the other, but skipping the EFI stub altogether is > really not an option, unless you want to carry the burden of keeping > your code in sync with the kernel. Locking this down as external ABI > is not acceptable to me. Agreed, which is why just as efi-stub has its entry interface that every bootmanager/bootloader must implement, the sl-stub is an entrypoint that will implement the Secure Launch specification for how it should be entered, whether that is by efi-stub or an EFI shim underneath efi-stub. V/r, Daniel P. Smith
