From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2695C2BA19 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:20:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1235206F5 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:20:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="qssMpFUq" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727699AbgDFLUs (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2020 07:20:48 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:51610 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726858AbgDFLUs (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2020 07:20:48 -0400 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2F04F6003429D1D3918D2B85.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f04:f600:3429:d1d3:918d:2b85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id C73A61EC0985; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 13:20:46 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1586172046; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=mSBY02R5H9nBmCTjq2Il3qFMSY21p0ZEMvW/qkGc8UM=; b=qssMpFUq4EwfQolq4WjiBir2F2H3hcsAnbGJHyAh3x+bO/QI9cBC//xIX/GoKFWynvq6dq AyeeGgEuBJag/3o7V78r4loh2QXbMpvFUyweVJk5AaCfF+H8tOuqGj6N/5CbGcFLWavqIn tsoKCrlJ6OF5kibzOlZ0cTj1L+phbVk= Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 13:20:42 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Arvind Sankar , Sergey Shatunov , hpa@zytor.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , mingo@redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner , x86@kernel.org, linux-efi , initramfs@vger.kernel.org, Donovan Tremura , Harald Hoyer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/boot/compressed/64: Remove .bss/.pgtable from bzImage Message-ID: <20200406112042.GC2520@zn.tnic> References: <20200109150218.16544-1-nivedita@alum.mit.edu> <20200405154245.11972-1-me@prok.pw> <20200405231845.GA3095309@rani.riverdale.lan> <20200406035110.GA3241052@rani.riverdale.lan> <20200406084738.GA2520@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:11:21AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > Yes, it is in the PE/COFF specification. [0] > > The whole problem is that we are conflating 'loading a PE/COFF image' > with 'copying a PE/COFF image into memory', which are not the same > thing. It is not just the layout issue, we are running into other > problems with things like UEFI secure boot and TPM-based measured > boot, where the fact that omitting the standard LoadImage() boot > service (which takes care of these things under the hood) means that > you now have to do your own checks and measurements. These things are > literally all over the place at the moment, shim, GRUB, systemd-boot > etc, with no authoritative spec that describes which component should > be doing what. Sounds to me like what LoadImage() does is what the authoritative spec should be. Perhaps we should write it down as "Do what LoadImage() does... " and then enumerate the requirements. > Commit ec93fc371f014a6fb483e3556061ecad4b40735c has the background, but ... Nice, I like the aspect of letting firmware do only a minimum amount of work. :) > ... I'll look into updating the documentation as well. Thanks! > Note that this stuff is hot off the press, so there may be some issues > lurking (like this one) that we hadn't thought of yet. Right. > Actually, it may be sufficient to #define __efistub_global to > __section(.data) like we already do for ARM, to ensure that these > global flags are always initialized correctly. (I'll wait for Sergey > to confirm that the spurious enabling of the PCI DMA protection > resulting from this BSS issue is causing the boot regression) Cool, but let's not jinx it. :-) Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette