Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 08:27:55 +0100
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>,
        Alec Brown <alec.r.brown@oracle.com>,
        Kanth Ghatraju <kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com>,
        Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@oracle.com>,
        "dpsmith@apertussolutions.com" <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>,
        "piotr.krol@3mdeb.com" <piotr.krol@3mdeb.com>,
        "krystian.hebel@3mdeb.com" <krystian.hebel@3mdeb.com>,
        "persaur@gmail.com" <persaur@gmail.com>,
        "Yoder, Stuart" <stuart.yoder@arm.com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
        "michal.zygowski@3mdeb.com" <michal.zygowski@3mdeb.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        "lukasz@hawrylko.pl" <lukasz@hawrylko.pl>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        The development of GNU GRUB <grub-devel@gnu.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: Linux DRTM on UEFI platforms
Message-ID: <20220330072755.GA1169@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <20220329174057.GA17778@srcf.ucam.org>
 <CAMj1kXE-7yPTBgQQKXRnQbdvLMv6D7=CowtQ38PdpPVa3SW-Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220330071103.GA809@srcf.ucam.org>
 <CAMj1kXE9WrBOUG6MRQ90cMH_NvvCw_jVCar5Dsj+gkZr1AA0MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220330071859.GA992@srcf.ucam.org>
 <CAMj1kXHfw75GphiewQzbA-swsMD3AGunyhc9HSue_xqrHt9GhQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXHfw75GphiewQzbA-swsMD3AGunyhc9HSue_xqrHt9GhQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 09:23:17AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 09:19, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> > From a conceptual perspective we've thought of the EFI stub as being
> > logically part of the bootloader rather than the early kernel, and the
> > bootloader is a point where the line is drawn. My guy feeling is that
> > jumping into the secure kernel environment before EBS has been called is
> > likely to end badly.
> 
> If you jump back into the system firmware, sure.
> 
> But the point I was trying to make is that you can replace that with
> your own minimal implementation of EFI that just exposes a memory map
> and some protocols and nothing else, and then the secure launch kernel
> would be entirely in charge of the execution environment.

We can't just replace system firmware with an imitation of the same - 
for instance, configuring the cold boot prevention memory overwrite 
requires us to pass a variable through to the real firmware, and that's 
something that we do in the stub.