From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753881AbdIHCtE (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:49:04 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:36425 "EHLO mail-pf0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752375AbdIHCtB (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2017 22:49:01 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb404F7vs5OojwtbkkZKd8QFEB3Ku0aTNx+oUokcb0KIcJ55zD/zT3324sLyb77Z4IWwSt49bA== Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 11:50:45 +0900 From: AKASHI Takahiro To: Mark Rutland Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dhowells@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, dyoung@redhat.com, bhe@redhat.com, arnd@arndb.de, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/14] arm64: kexec_file: add sha256 digest check in purgatory Message-ID: <20170908025044.GD17186@linaro.org> Mail-Followup-To: AKASHI Takahiro , Mark Rutland , catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dhowells@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, dyoung@redhat.com, bhe@redhat.com, arnd@arndb.de, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20170824081811.19299-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <20170824081811.19299-10-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <20170824170440.GD29665@leverpostej> <20170825012103.GB7245@akashi-kouhiroshi-no-MacBook-Air.local> <20170825104133.GB3127@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170825104133.GB3127@leverpostej> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:41:33AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:21:06AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 06:04:40PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 05:18:06PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > > Most of sha256 code is based on crypto/sha256-glue.c, particularly using > > > > non-neon version. > > > > > > > > Please note that we won't be able to re-use lib/mem*.S for purgatory > > > > because unaligned memory access is not allowed in purgatory where mmu > > > > is turned off. > > > > > > > > Since purgatory is not linked with the other part of kernel, care must be > > > > taken of selecting an appropriate set of compiler options in order to > > > > prevent undefined symbol references from being generated. > > > > > > What is the point in performing this check in the purgatory code, when > > > this will presumably have been checked when the image is loaded? > > > > Well, this is what x86 does :) > > On powerpc, meanwhile, they don't have this check. > > > > Maybe to avoid booting corrupted kernel after loading? > > (loaded data are now protected by making them unmapped, though.) > > I'd really prefer to avoid this, since it seems to be what necessitates > all the complexity for executing C code (linking and all), and it's > going to be very slow to execute with the MMU off. > > If you can deliberately corrupt the next kernel, you could also have > corrupted the purgatory to skip the check. > > Unless we have a strong reason to want the hash check, I think it should > be dropped. As I said, I will drop the code in v2 :) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/purgatory/entry.S b/arch/arm64/purgatory/entry.S > > > > index bc4e6b3bf8a1..74d028b838bd 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/purgatory/entry.S > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/purgatory/entry.S > > > > @@ -6,6 +6,11 @@ > > > > .text > > > > > > > > ENTRY(purgatory_start) > > > > + adr x19, .Lstack > > > > + mov sp, x19 > > > > + > > > > + bl purgatory > > > > + > > > > /* Start new image. */ > > > > ldr x17, arm64_kernel_entry > > > > ldr x0, arm64_dtb_addr > > > > @@ -15,6 +20,14 @@ ENTRY(purgatory_start) > > > > br x17 > > > > END(purgatory_start) > > > > > > > > +.ltorg > > > > + > > > > +.align 4 > > > > + .rept 256 > > > > + .quad 0 > > > > + .endr > > > > +.Lstack: > > > > + > > > > .data > > > > > > Why is the stack in .text? > > > > to call verify_sha256_digest() from asm > > Won't that also work if the stack is in .data? or .bss? > > ... or is there a particular need for it to be in .text? > > > > Does this need to be zeroed? > > > > No :) > > Ok, so we can probably do: > > .data > .align 4 > . += PURGATORY_STACK_SIZE > .Lstack_ptr: > > ... assuming we need to run C code. > > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/purgatory/sha256.c b/arch/arm64/purgatory/sha256.c > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..5d20d81767e3 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/purgatory/sha256.c > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ > > > > +#include > > > > +#include > > > > +#include > > > > + > > > > +/* > > > > + * Under KASAN, those are defined as un-instrumented version, __memxxx() > > > > + */ > > > > +#undef memcmp > > > > +#undef memcpy > > > > +#undef memset > > > > > > This doesn't look like the right place for this undeffery; it looks > > > rather fragile. > > > > Yeah, I agree, but if not there, __memxxx() are used. > > Ok, but we'll have to add this to every C file used in the purgatory > code, or at the start of any header that uses a memxxx() function, or it > might still be overridden to use __memxxx(), before the undef takes > effect. > > Can we define __memxxx() instead? > > [...] > > > > > +void *memcpy(void *dst, const void *src, size_t len) > > > > +{ > > > > + int i; > > > > + > > > > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) > > > > + ((u8 *)dst)[i] = ((u8 *)src)[i]; > > > > + > > > > + return NULL; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +void *memset(void *dst, int c, size_t len) > > > > +{ > > > > + int i; > > > > + > > > > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) > > > > + ((u8 *)dst)[i] = (u8)c; > > > > + > > > > + return NULL; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +int memcmp(const void *src, const void *dst, size_t len) > > > > +{ > > > > + int i; > > > > + > > > > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) > > > > + if (*(char *)src != *(char *)dst) > > > > + return 1; > > > > + > > > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > > > > > How is the compiler prevented from "optimising" these into calls to > > > themselves? > > > > I don't get what you mean by "calls to themselves." > > There are compiler optimizations that recognise sequences like: > > for (i = 0; i < len; i++) > dst[i] = src[i]; > > ... and turn those into: > > memcpy(dst, src, len); > > ... these have been known to "optimize" memcpy implementations into > calls to themselves. Likewise for other string operations. > > One way we avoid that today is by writing our memcpy in assembly. I see, thanks. > Do we have a guarnatee that this will not happen here? e.g. do we pass > some compiler flag that prevents this? I don't know any options to do this. (maybe -nostdlib?) -Takahiro AKASHI > Thanks, > Mark.