[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200928181755.000019bf@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:17:55 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
CC: Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "Jason A . Donenfeld"
<Jason@...c4.com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, "Kernel
Hardening" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com>, ACPI Devel Maling List
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, "Will
Deacon" <will@...nel.org>, Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64/acpi: disallow AML memory opregions to
access kernel memory
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:49:35 +0200
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 18:02, Jonathan Cameron
> <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:58:31 +0200
> > Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > AML uses SystemMemory opregions to allow AML handlers to access MMIO
> > > registers of, e.g., GPIO controllers, or access reserved regions of
> > > memory that are owned by the firmware.
> > >
> > > Currently, we also allow AML access to memory that is owned by the
> > > kernel and mapped via the linear region, which does not seem to be
> > > supported by a valid use case, and exposes the kernel's internal
> > > state to AML methods that may be buggy and exploitable.
> > >
> > > On arm64, ACPI support requires booting in EFI mode, and so we can cross
> > > reference the requested region against the EFI memory map, rather than
> > > just do a minimal check on the first page. So let's only permit regions
> > > to be remapped by the ACPI core if
> > > - they don't appear in the EFI memory map at all (which is the case for
> > > most MMIO), or
> > > - they are covered by a single region in the EFI memory map, which is not
> > > of a type that describes memory that is given to the kernel at boot.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> >
> > Hi Ard,
> >
> > Ran into a problem with this one. See below
> >
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 15 +----
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > index a45366c3909b..bd68e1b7f29f 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > @@ -47,20 +47,7 @@
> > > pgprot_t __acpi_get_mem_attribute(phys_addr_t addr);
> > >
> > > /* ACPI table mapping after acpi_permanent_mmap is set */
> > > -static inline void __iomem *acpi_os_ioremap(acpi_physical_address phys,
> > > - acpi_size size)
> > > -{
> > > - /* For normal memory we already have a cacheable mapping. */
> > > - if (memblock_is_map_memory(phys))
> > > - return (void __iomem *)__phys_to_virt(phys);
> > > -
> > > - /*
> > > - * We should still honor the memory's attribute here because
> > > - * crash dump kernel possibly excludes some ACPI (reclaim)
> > > - * regions from memblock list.
> > > - */
> > > - return __ioremap(phys, size, __acpi_get_mem_attribute(phys));
> > > -}
> > > +void __iomem *acpi_os_ioremap(acpi_physical_address phys, acpi_size size);
> > > #define acpi_os_ioremap acpi_os_ioremap
> > >
> > > typedef u64 phys_cpuid_t;
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> > > index a7586a4db142..01b861e225b0 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> > > @@ -261,6 +261,72 @@ pgprot_t __acpi_get_mem_attribute(phys_addr_t addr)
> > > return __pgprot(PROT_DEVICE_nGnRnE);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +void __iomem *acpi_os_ioremap(acpi_physical_address phys, acpi_size size)
> > > +{
> > > + efi_memory_desc_t *md, *region = NULL;
> > > + pgprot_t prot;
> > > +
> > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!efi_enabled(EFI_MEMMAP)))
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +
> > > + for_each_efi_memory_desc(md) {
> > > + u64 end = md->phys_addr + (md->num_pages << EFI_PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > +
> > > + if (phys < md->phys_addr || phys >= end)
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + if (phys + size > end) {
> > > + pr_warn(FW_BUG "requested region covers multiple EFI memory regions\n");
> > > + return NULL;
> > > + }
> > > + region = md;
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * It is fine for AML to remap regions that are not represented in the
> > > + * EFI memory map at all, as it only describes normal memory, and MMIO
> > > + * regions that require a virtual mapping to make them accessible to
> > > + * the EFI runtime services.
> > > + */
> > > + prot = __pgprot(PROT_DEVICE_nGnRnE);
> > > + if (region) {
> > > + switch (region->type) {
> > > + case EFI_LOADER_CODE:
> > > + case EFI_LOADER_DATA:
> >
> > Unfortunately this seems to have broken overriding of ACPI tables from an initrd.
> > My particular test environment is qemu + EDK2.
> >
> > It only has obvious visible affect on tables that are used late in the boot such as PPTT
> > as they get dropped before they are used.
> >
> > These are read after ACPICA is initialized and acpi_reallocate_root_table()
> > has been called. The back trace is:
> >
> > acpi_os_ioremap+0xfc/0x288
> > acpi_os_map_iomem+0xc4/0x188
> > acpi_os_map_memory+0x18/0x28
> > acpi_tb_acquire_table+0x54/0x8c
> > acpi_tb_validate_table+0x34/0x5c
> > acpi_tb_validate_temp_table+0x34/0x40
> > acpi_tb_verify_temp_table+0x48/0x250
> > acpi_reallocate_root_table+0x12c/0x160
> >
> > Seems that the table is in a region of type EFI_LOADER_DATA.
> >
> > I don't really know enough about this area to be sure what the right fix is or
> > even whether this is a kernel issue, or one that should be fixed elsewhere in
> > the stack.
> >
> > For now I'm just carry a hack that treats EFI_LOADER_DATA in the same fashion as
> > EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY below.
> >
> > What's the right way to fix this?
> >
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> That is an excellent question.
>
> The purpose of this change is to ensure that firmware cannot
> manipulate the internal state of the kernel. So as long as we can
> ensure that this memory is not claimed by the kernel's memory
> subsystem, we should be fine.
>
> Since this is an obvious debug feature, what we could do is reserve
> this memory permanently in some way, and make the test take this into
> account.
Whilst it is a debug feature, I wonder if it gets shipped in production
hardware. If not, could be we cynical and just drop the check if the
relevant config option is enabled?
Perhaps just don't release the EFI_LOADER_DATA for other use? (if
this option is enabled only)
>
> Do you have a full stack trace? How early does this run?
For the place where it first occurs, ie the trace above, the acpi_reallocate_root_table() is
the call from acpi_early_init() from start_kernel().
We hit the table a lot during later calls though and hence would run into the
same problem.
Jonathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
