From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>,
Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>,
Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] efi/libstub: measurement initrd data loaded by the EFI stub
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:51:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201103055156.GA355267@apalos.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201102170634.20575-1-ardb@kernel.org>
Hi Ard,
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 06:06:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This series enables measurement of the initrd data loaded directly by the
> EFI stub into the TPM, using the TCG2 protocol exposed by the firmware (if
> available). This ensures that the initrd observed and used by the OS is the
> same one that got measured into the TPM, which is more difficult to guarantee
> in the current situation.
>
I like this. The OS gets the ability to 'self-measure' one critical component.
This can of course be done in the bootloader or GRUB, but having the functionality
in the stub will allow you to boot with a verified initrd, if even GRUB isn't
there or the bootloader doesn't measure the initrd.
> This is posted as an RFC since it is mostly an invitation to discuss how
> we can fit this into a longer term strategy for arch-agnostic secure and
> measured boot that does not hinge on the Shim+GRUB tandem, or on deep
> knowledge on the part of the bootloader regarding device trees, bootparams
> structs, allocation and placement policies of various artifacts etc etc
>
> Open questions:
> - Should we do this?
I think so. I can't find any arguments why we shouldn't.
> - Are Linux systems in the field using PCR value prediction when updating the
> initrd? Does this approach interfere with that?
> - Which PCR and event type to use
No idea. I think distros will have an opinion on that
> - Is a separator event needed here, given that the initrd measurement is
> recorded even if no initrd was loaded by the stub?
I think having the event make sense, but if we going to make a standard
measurement for the initrd, we need to discuss this a bit more.
>
> Note that the EFI stub ignores the initrd provided directly via bootparams or
> the device tree, and it would be nice if we could keep doing that.
>
> Build tested only.
Cheers
/Ilias
>
> Cc: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>
> Cc: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
> Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
> Cc: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>
> Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
>
> Ard Biesheuvel (7):
> efi/libstub: whitespace cleanup
> efi/libstub: fix prototype of efi_tcg2_protocol::get_event_log()
> efi/libstub: x86/mixed: increase supported argument count
> efi/libstub: move TPM related prototypes into efistub.h
> efi/libstub: add prototype of
> efi_tcg2_protocol::hash_log_extend_event()
> efi/libstub: consolidate initrd handling across architectures
> efi/libstub: measure loaded initrd info into the TPM
>
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/efi_thunk_64.S | 17 ++++--
> arch/x86/include/asm/efi.h | 13 +++--
> arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_thunk_64.S | 17 ++++--
> .../firmware/efi/libstub/efi-stub-helper.c | 56 +++++++++++++++----
> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efi-stub.c | 10 +---
> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efistub.h | 34 ++++++++++-
> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/x86-stub.c | 26 ++++-----
> include/linux/efi.h | 13 +----
> 8 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-03 5:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-02 17:06 [RFC PATCH 0/7] efi/libstub: measurement initrd data loaded by the EFI stub Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-02 17:06 ` [RFC PATCH 1/7] efi/libstub: whitespace cleanup Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-02 17:06 ` [RFC PATCH 2/7] efi/libstub: fix prototype of efi_tcg2_protocol::get_event_log() Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-02 17:06 ` [RFC PATCH 3/7] efi/libstub: x86/mixed: increase supported argument count Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-02 17:06 ` [RFC PATCH 4/7] efi/libstub: move TPM related prototypes into efistub.h Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-02 17:06 ` [RFC PATCH 5/7] efi/libstub: add prototype of efi_tcg2_protocol::hash_log_extend_event() Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-02 17:06 ` [RFC PATCH 6/7] efi/libstub: consolidate initrd handling across architectures Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-02 17:06 ` [RFC PATCH 7/7] efi/libstub: measure loaded initrd info into the TPM Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-03 21:45 ` James Bottomley
2020-11-02 19:39 ` [RFC PATCH 0/7] efi/libstub: measurement initrd data loaded by the EFI stub Matthew Garrett
2020-11-02 20:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-02 20:26 ` Matthew Garrett
2020-11-03 21:37 ` James Bottomley
2020-11-03 22:29 ` James Bottomley
2020-11-03 5:51 ` Ilias Apalodimas [this message]
2020-11-03 8:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-03 21:22 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201103055156.GA355267@apalos.home \
--to=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel.kiper@oracle.com \
--cc=leif@nuviainc.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@google.com \
--cc=nivedita@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=pjones@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).