Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-94146-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 07:21:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject:     Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 3/3] efistub: fix missed the initialization of gp
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXH1oMbONoHFMPaatfaqrHNE2ryfrG7kw-7J-eFsuXkK-Q@mail.gmail.com>
CC: cuiyunhui@bytedance.com, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
  aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, xuzhipeng.1973@bytedance.com, alexghiti@rivosinc.com, samitolvanen@google.com,
  bp@alien8.de, xiao.w.wang@intel.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
  nathan@kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
  linux-efi@vger.kernel.org
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <mhng-c53211c1-4708-459a-bdc5-6e013c2adaee@palmer-ri-x1c9>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 05:09:07 PST (-0800), Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 14:02, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 13:34, yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Ard,
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 5:36 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:56, Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Compared with gcc version 12, gcc version 13 uses the gp
>> > > > register for compilation optimization, but the efistub module
>> > > > does not initialize gp.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com>
>> > > > Co-Developed-by: Zhipeng Xu <xuzhipeng.1973@bytedance.com>
>> > >
>> > > This needs a sign-off, and your signoff needs to come after.
>> > >
>> > > > ---
>> > > >  arch/riscv/kernel/efi-header.S | 11 ++++++++++-
>> > > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/efi-header.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/efi-header.S
>> > > > index 515b2dfbca75..fa17c08c092a 100644
>> > > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/efi-header.S
>> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/efi-header.S
>> > > > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ optional_header:
>> > > >         .long   __pecoff_data_virt_end - __pecoff_text_end      // SizeOfInitializedData
>> > > >  #endif
>> > > >         .long   0                                       // SizeOfUninitializedData
>> > > > -       .long   __efistub_efi_pe_entry - _start         // AddressOfEntryPoint
>> > > > +       .long   _efistub_entry - _start         // AddressOfEntryPoint
>> > > >         .long   efi_header_end - _start                 // BaseOfCode
>> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_32BIT
>> > > >         .long  __pecoff_text_end - _start               // BaseOfData
>> > > > @@ -121,4 +121,13 @@ section_table:
>> > > >
>> > > >         .balign 0x1000
>> > > >  efi_header_end:
>> > > > +
>> > > > +       .global _efistub_entry
>> > > > +_efistub_entry:
>> > >
>> > > This should go into .text or .init.text, not the header.
>> > >
>> > > > +       /* Reload the global pointer */
>> > > > +       load_global_pointer
>> > > > +
>> > >
>> > > What is supposed to happen here if CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK=y? The EFI
>> > > stub Makefile removes the SCS CFLAGS, so the stub will be built
>> > > without shadow call stack support, which I guess means that it might
>> > > use GP as a global pointer as usual?
>> > >
>> > > > +       call __efistub_efi_pe_entry
>> > > > +       ret
>> > > > +
>> > >
>> > > You are returning to the firmware here, but after modifying the GP
>> > > register. Shouldn't you restore it to its old value?
>> > There is no need to restore the value of the gp register. Where gp is
>> > needed, the gp register must first be initialized. And here is the
>> > entry.
>> >
>>
>> But how should the firmware know that GP was corrupted after calling
>> the kernel's EFI entrypoint? The EFI stub can return to the firmware
>> if it encounters any errors while still running in the EFI boot
>> services.
>>
>
> Actually, I wonder if GP can be modified at all before
> ExitBootServices(). The EFI timer interrupt is still live at this
> point, and so the firmware is being called behind your back, and might
> rely on GP retaining its original value.

[A few of us are talking on IRC as I'm writing this...]

The UEFI spec says "UEFI firmware must neither trust the
values of tp and gp nor make an assumption of owning the write access to 
these register in any circumstances".  It's kind of vague what "UEFI 
firmware" means here, but I think it's reasonable to assume that the 
kernel (and thus the EFI stub) is not included there.

So under that interpretation, the kernel (including the EFI stub) would 
be allowed to overwrite GP with whatever it wants.

[We're still talking on IRC, though]