On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 11:10, Chao Fan <fanc.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 09:57:02AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:56, Chao Fan <fanc.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 09:46:03AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 01:22, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:53:22PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 12:44:51PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> >> > > Yes, the kernel boots if I comment out that function and have it return 0.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks, this localizes the issue significantly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some observations:
> >> >>
> >> >> } else {
> >> >> efi_config_table_32_t *tmp_table;
> >> >>
> >> >> tmp_table = config_tables;
> >> >> guid = tmp_table->guid; <--- *
> >> >> table = tmp_table->table;
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> It blows up at that tmp_table->guid deref above. Singlestepping through
> >> >> it with gdb shows:
> >> >>
> >> >> # arch/x86/boot/compressed/acpi.c:114: guid = tmp_table->guid;
> >> >> movq (%rdi), %rax # MEM[(struct efi_config_table_32_t *)config_tables_37].guid, guid
> >> >> movq 8(%rdi), %rsi # MEM[(struct efi_config_table_32_t *)config_tables_37].guid, guid
> >> >> # arch/x86/boot/compressed/acpi.c:115: table = tmp_table->table;
> >> >> movl 16(%rdi), %r10d # MEM[(struct efi_config_table_32_t *)config_tables_37].table, table
> >> >> jmp .L30 #
> >> >>
> >> >> and %rdi has:
> >> >>
> >> >> rdi 0x630646870
> >> >>
> >> >> which is an address above 4G but we're using a 32-bit EFI BIOS.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which begs the question whether EFI system tables can even be mapped at
> >> >> something above 4G with a 32-bit EFI and whether that could work ok.
> >> >> Hmm.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lemme add Ard and mfleming for insight here.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >-ENOCONTEXT, but let me try in any case:
> >> >
> >> >linux/efi.h has
> >> >
> >> >typedef struct {
> >> > efi_guid_t guid;
> >> > u32 table;
> >> >} efi_config_table_32_t;
> >> >
> >> >so if we end up with more than 32 bits set in table, there is
> >> >something seriously wrong.
> >> >
> >> >The size of efi_config_table_32_t deviates from efi_config_table_64_t,
> >> >so you will have to ensure that you are using the correct stride when
> >> >iterating over config_tables.
> >>
> >> Here I use signature to judge it.
> >> If the signature is EFI64_LOADER_SIGNATURE, I will use efi_config_table_64_t,
> >> if the signature is EFI32_LOADER_SIGNATURE, I will use efi_config_table_32_t.
> >> But the efi32 whose signature is EFI32_LOADER_SIGNATURE points to a
> >> address above 4G, I am not sure whether this is normal and works well.
> >>
> >
> >This is impossible. The 'table' member of efi_config_table_32_t is
> >only 32 bits wide, so how can it contain an address over 4 GB ?
>
> Maybe I mislead you. In my code, I need to find the eficonfig_table_*.
> After that, I should type cast it to right
> efi_config_table_32_t or efi_config_table_64_t.
>
> Then my judgment is to compare its efi_info->efi_loader_signature.
> If it's EFI64_LOADER_SIGNATURE, I will type cast it to efi_config_table_64_t.
> If it's EFI32_LOADER_SIGNATURE, I will type cast it to efi_config_table_32_t.
>
> But here is a issue, its signature matches EFI32_LOADER_SIGNATURE, but
> it's table member is above 4G, but I use efi_config_table_32_t. That cause a problem.
>
That still does not explain how 'table' can assume a value > 4 GB
after assigning the contents of a u32 to it.
|