On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:59:48AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 09:42, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 09:22:15AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 15:40, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 02:24:25PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 11:22, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 08:41:39PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > Also IMO there is only really one LMB list today. We create it at > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > start of bootm and then it is done when we boot. The file-loading > > > > > > > stuff is what makes all this confusing...and with bootstd that is > > > > > > > under control as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At lot of this effort seems to be about dealing with random > > > > > > > scripts > > > > > > > which load things. We want to make sure we complain if something > > > > > > > overlaps. But we should be making the bootstd case work nicely and > > > > > > > doing things within that framework. Also EFI sort-of has its own > > > > > > > thing, which it is very-much in control of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Overall I think this is a bit more subtle that just combining > > > > > > > allocators. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this gets to the main misunderstanding. The problem isn't > > > > > > handling bootstd, or EFI boot, or even assorted scripts. Those are > > > > > > all > > > > > > cases where things are otherwise (sufficiently) well-defined. The > > > > > > problem is "security" and that a "carefully crafted payload" could > > > > > > do > > > > > > something malicious. That's why we have to do all of this stuff > > > > > > sooner > > > > > > rather than later in our boot process. > > > > > > > > > > That's the first I have heard of this, actually, but a bit more detail > > > > > would help. How does the payload get loaded? I'm just not sure about > > > > > the overall goals. It seems that everyone else is already familiar - > > > > > can someone please take the time to point me to the details? > > > > > > > > Well, the short version I believe of the first CVE we got (and so > > > > started abusing LMB) was along the lines of "load an image near where > > > > the U-Boot stack is, smash things for fun and exploits". > > > > > > OK. I am surprised that LMB does not catch that. It is supposed to add > > > the stack and various other things right at the start before loading > > > any file. So even if it clears the LMB each time, it should not be > > > able to do that. Having said this, the code may be buggy as I don't > > > think we have tests for U-Boot's overall functional behaviour in these > > > situations. > > > > Right, LMB does catch the example I gave (because we made all of the > > load from storage/network functions init an lmb and we always make sure > > a new lmb gets U-Boot stack/etc). The next thing we didn't catch was > > "what if EFI does the loading?" and we've kludged around that, and in > > turn had some of the thorny questions. Some of that is what I think > > you're asking about in this part of the thread, to which the answer is > > "EFI spec says you need to place X in memory", so we just need to > > reserve it when it's asked for, so that something else can't come along > > and smash it maliciously. > > OK I see. Of course it isn't just EFI that has this issue. I believe > the answer (for small blocks) is to use malloc(), which I think we do > with a few exceptions which Ilias pointed out. For things like the TPM > log and ACPI tables we should probably use a bloblist, as we do on > x86. For large things (like loading a kernel) we should use LMB. I've > been thinking about how best to tie this to boot, as opposed to random > allocations in U-Boot itself, which would lead to fragmentation and > strange behaviour. I think bootstd is a great place to have a > persistent LMB. It can be attached to bootstd_priv. > > My hope is that EFI is just another boot method, where > already-allocating things are presented to the OS. Apart from the > Ilias exceptions, I believe this is how it works today. > > Where I think this heads in the wrong direction is using > EFI-allocation functions before we are booting an EFI image. EFI has > no concept of what is 'in empty space' so it leads to the lmb > conflict, the subject of this discussion. > > This is all quite subtle and probably worthy of a VC discussion.
But it's not tied to "boot". Again, the problems are with potential malicious actions. So if we're in some function that says "I need to claim $THIS range", it needs check in with the reservation system so that it can be told "Sorry, already reserved" if needed. It's not a good idea for $subsystem to say it needs $THIS range, but then we don't make the reservation until later because someone could have acted in there in the interim. I see there's been further discussion between you/Heinrich/Sughosh and I'll otherwise leave it until the next iteration, but I want to be clear that I see it as important that when something says it needs $THIS range, we put it in the reservation system. > > But that also raised the more general problem, and why we need a > > persistent reservation list, of allowing boards/SoCs to say they want to > > reserve a block of memory for whatever, and have that obeyed, for real. > > For example, the mach-apple logic of "just pick some memory locations to > > use for kernel/dtb/initrd" isn't really as safe as it should be since > > those reservations aren't really seen anywhere once the function > > returns, it's just setting some environment variables. > > Yes, that part of it I understand. Somehow I either didn't see or > forgot that board_late_init() code. With the script-based boot it > makes some sort of sense, but with bootstd we should have allocation > of addresses dealt with there. I have held off on retiring > kernel_addr_r etc. as the scripts are still in use. But perhaps it > would be a good time to convert bootstd to use lmb instead? I'm not sure I follow you. It's already using lmb since that's been part of the normal OS boot flow since forever? If you mean make it easier to let the system just pick where to load stuff in to memory for you, yes, that mach-apple functionality would be a handy fallback/default. Especially if done in concert with double checking on what needs to be done to minimize copying data around and around and around in boot before we start the OS, since that's where much of the hard part of deciding addresses is. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
