Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMj1kXEBfJUfTQ3THqqKxsU09_S98B_TjTECKwGM0WAv_5tZaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <7930b617-d473-94dd-c7e4-33ffa19da13e@suse.com> <CAMj1kXEJ9d3-8xa7rkczY7ur2zDm9CjqM7u1eEdHHmPG=Oo=xA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3671fd52-6034-7149-ebe4-f7560c0dc6b0@suse.com> <Yyu1xC7Tlf9sS7Ro@itl-email>
 <6f42a382-c5aa-ba16-f330-69a07476e2aa@suse.com> <Yyx3hlE/MDBeEdtu@itl-email>
 <CAMj1kXFoyTRKfGH2nMpi-EJRqLz9T_p+ZMM0x09UNJ-34-kS_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <YyylgVqDMi9SDptq@itl-email> <CAMj1kXE8ZPxHS2BEEKyJNUKut0Peb2kb3CWMwuxxeyFhJk1DZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YyzvWmcvvGq+TQ/R@itl-email>
In-Reply-To: <YyzvWmcvvGq+TQ/R@itl-email>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2022 08:45:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXF9miqWZ4nKqTt1uqRQkhY2tPAGDm8n41thyd0jiW7ygw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Support ESRT in Xen dom0
To:     Demi Marie Obenour <demi@invisiblethingslab.com>
Cc:     Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>,
        linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Marek_Marczykowski=2DG=C3=B3recki?= 
        <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 23 Sept 2022 at 01:27, Demi Marie Obenour
<demi@invisiblethingslab.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:14:50AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Sept 2022 at 20:12, Demi Marie Obenour
> > <demi@invisiblethingslab.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 05:05:43PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 22 Sept 2022 at 16:56, Demi Marie Obenour
> > > > <demi@invisiblethingslab.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 08:12:14AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 22.09.2022 03:09, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:34:04PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 20.09.2022 18:09, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 17:54, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.c=
om> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On 20.09.2022 17:36, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 21:33, Demi Marie Obenour
> > > > > > >>>>> <demi@invisiblethingslab.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> fwupd requires access to the EFI System Resource Table (=
ESRT) to
> > > > > > >>>>>> discover which firmware can be updated by the OS.  Curre=
ntly, Linux does
> > > > > > >>>>>> not expose the ESRT when running as a Xen dom0.  Therefo=
re, it is not
> > > > > > >>>>>> possible to use fwupd in a Xen dom0, which is a serious =
problem for e.g.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Qubes OS.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Before Xen 4.16, this was not fixable due to hypervisor =
limitations.
> > > > > > >>>>>> The UEFI specification requires the ESRT to be in EfiBoo=
tServicesData
> > > > > > >>>>>> memory, which Xen will use for whatever purposes it like=
s.  Therefore,
> > > > > > >>>>>> Linux cannot safely access the ESRT, as Xen may have ove=
rwritten it.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Starting with Xen 4.17, Xen checks if the ESRT is in Efi=
BootServicesData
> > > > > > >>>>>> or EfiRuntimeServicesData memory.  If the ESRT is in Efi=
BootServicesData
> > > > > > >>>>>> memory, Xen allocates some memory of type EfiRuntimeServ=
icesData, copies
> > > > > > >>>>>> the ESRT to it, and finally replaces the ESRT pointer wi=
th a pointer to
> > > > > > >>>>>> the copy.  Since Xen will not clobber EfiRuntimeServices=
Data memory,
> > > > > > >>>>>> this ensures that the ESRT can safely be accessed by the=
 OS.  It is safe
> > > > > > >>>>>> to access the ESRT under Xen if, and only if, it is in m=
emory of type
> > > > > > >>>>>> EfiRuntimeServicesData.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the elaborate explanation. This is really help=
ful.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> So here, you are explaining that the only way for Xen to =
prevent
> > > > > > >>>>> itself from potentially clobbering the ESRT is by creatin=
g a
> > > > > > >>>>> completely new allocation?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> There are surely other ways, e.g. preserving BootServices*=
 regions
> > > > > > >>>> alongside RuntimeServices* ones. But as the maintainer of =
the EFI
> > > > > > >>>> code in Xen I don't view this as a reasonable approach.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Why not?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Because it's against the intentions the EFI has (or at least=
 had)
> > > > > > >> for this memory type. Much more than EfiAcpiReclaimMemory th=
is
> > > > > > >> type is intended for use as ordinary RAM post-boot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What about giving that memory to dom0?  dom0=E2=80=99s balloo=
n driver will give
> > > > > > > anything dom0 doesn=E2=80=99t wind up using back to Xen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While perhaps in principle possible, this would require special=
 casing
> > > > > > in Xen. Except for the memory the initrd comes in, we don't dir=
ectly
> > > > > > hand memory to Dom0. Instead everything goes through the page a=
llocator
> > > > > > first. Plus if we really were convinced boot services memory ne=
eded
> > > > > > retaining, then it would also need retaining across kexec (and =
hence
> > > > > > shouldn't be left to Dom0 to decide what to do with it).
> > > > >
> > > > > So how should dom0 handle the various EFI tables other than the E=
SRT?
> > > > > Right now most uses of these tables in Linux are not guarded by a=
ny
> > > > > checks for efi_enabled(EFI_MEMMAP) or similar.  If some of them a=
re in
> > > > > EfiBootServicesData memory, they might be corrupted before Linux =
gets
> > > > > them.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this is an annoying oversight of the EFI design: the config
> > > > tables are <guid, address> tuples, and the size of the table is
> > > > specific to each table type. So without knowing the GUID, there is =
no
> > > > way you can reserve the right size.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you could implement something like a hypercall in
> > > > efi_arch_mem_reserve(), which is called by the EFI code to reserve
> > > > regions that are in boot services memory but need to remain reserve=
d?
> > > > This is used for all config tables that it knows or cares about.
> > >
> > > On versions of Xen that support spawning multiple domains at boot
> > > (instead of just dom0) this will be racy.  What about refusing to use
> > > tables in EfiBootServicesData when running under Xen unless a hyperca=
ll
> > > indicates that Xen has reserved all EfiBootServicesData memory?  Wher=
e
> > > could such a check be placed?
> >
> > You could stick a check inside the for loop in
> > efi_config_parse_tables() to cross reference every table address
> > against the memory map when running on Xen, and disregard it if it
> > doesn't meet your criteria.
> >
> > I take it the issue is not limited to x86?
>
> Indeed the issue is cross-platform.  For Qubes OS, I wonder if a safer
> approach would be to reserve all EfiBootServicesData memory by default.

You only need to reserve the ones that have configuration tables
pointing into them.