Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime

[joeyli]

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 12:21:23PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Sep, at 08:33:07AM, joeyli wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, the machine on my hand has EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE enabled, and it doesn't
> > boot without your patch.
> 
> Awesome. Could you test the following patch instead?
> 
> ---

Yes, as the first edition, this patch works on my S1200V3RPS machine.

Tested-by: Lee, Chun-Yi <jlee@xxxxxxxx>

Regards
Joey Lee

> 
> >From 24d324b781a3b688dcc265995949a9cf4e8af687 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:56:25 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH v2] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime
> 
> Beginning with UEFI v2.5 EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE was introduced that
> signals that the firmware PE/COFF loader supports splitting code and
> data sections of PE/COFF images into separate EFI memory map entries.
> This allows the kernel to map those regions with strict memory
> protections, e.g. EFI_MEMORY_RO for code, EFI_MEMORY_XP for data, etc.
> 
> Unfortunately, an unwritten requirement of this new feature is that
> the regions need to be mapped with the same offsets relative to each
> other as observed in the EFI memory map. If this is not done crashes
> like this may occur,
> 
>  [    0.006391] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at fffffffefe6086dd
>  [    0.006923] IP: [<fffffffefe6086dd>] 0xfffffffefe6086dd
>  [    0.007000] Call Trace:
>  [    0.007000]  [<ffffffff8104c90e>] efi_call+0x7e/0x100
>  [    0.007000]  [<ffffffff81602091>] ? virt_efi_set_variable+0x61/0x90
>  [    0.007000]  [<ffffffff8104c583>] efi_delete_dummy_variable+0x63/0x70
>  [    0.007000]  [<ffffffff81f4e4aa>] efi_enter_virtual_mode+0x383/0x392
>  [    0.007000]  [<ffffffff81f37e1b>] start_kernel+0x38a/0x417
>  [    0.007000]  [<ffffffff81f37495>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
>  [    0.007000]  [<ffffffff81f37582>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xeb/0xef
> 
> Here 0xfffffffefe6086dd refers to an address the firmware expects to
> be mapped but which the OS never claimed was mapped. The issue is that
> included in these regions are relative addresses to other regions
> which were emitted by the firmware toolchain before the "splitting" of
> sections occurred at runtime.
> 
> Needless to say, we don't satisfy this unwritten requirement on x86_64
> and instead map the EFI memory map entries in reverse order. The above
> crash is almost certainly triggerable with any kernel newer than v3.13
> because that's when we rewrote the EFI runtime region mapping code, in
> commit d2f7cbe7b26a ("x86/efi: Runtime services virtual mapping"). For
> kernel versions before v3.13 things may work by pure luck depending on
> the fragmentation of the kernel virtual address space at the time we
> map the EFI regions.
> 
> Instead of mapping the EFI memory map entries in reverse order, where
> entry N has a higher virtual address than entry N+1, map them in the
> same order as they appear in the EFI memory map to preserve this
> relative offset between regions.
> 
> This patch has been kept as small as possible with the intention that
> it should be applied aggressively to stable and distribution kernels.
> It is very much a bugfix rather than support for a new feature, since
> when EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE is enabled we must map things as outlined
> above to even boot - we have no way of asking the firmware not to
> split the code/data regions.
> 
> In fact, this patch doesn't even make use of the more strict memory
> protections available in UEFI v2.5. That will come later.
> 
> Reported-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Lee, Chun-Yi <jlee@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: James Bottomley <JBottomley@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
> v2: Use Ard's reverse iteration scheme so that we can reuse the
> existing efi_map_region() implementation that maps things top-down.
> 
>  arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> index e4308fe6afe8..c6835bfad3a1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> @@ -705,6 +705,70 @@ out:
>  }
>  
>  /*
> + * Iterate the EFI memory map in reverse order because the regions
> + * will be mapped top-down. The end result is the same as if we had
> + * mapped things forward, but doesn't require us to change the
> + * existing implementation of efi_map_region().
> + */
> +static inline void *efi_map_next_entry_reverse(void *entry)
> +{
> +	/* Initial call */
> +	if (!entry)
> +		return memmap.map_end - memmap.desc_size;
> +
> +	entry -= memmap.desc_size;
> +	if (entry < memmap.map)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	return entry;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * efi_map_next_entry - Return the next EFI memory map descriptor
> + * @entry: Previous EFI memory map descriptor
> + *
> + * This is a helper function to iterate over the EFI memory map, which
> + * we do in different orders depending on the current configuration.
> + *
> + * To begin traversing the memory map @entry must be %NULL.
> + *
> + * Returns %NULL when we reach the end of the memory map.
> + */
> +static void *efi_map_next_entry(void *entry)
> +{
> +	if (!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP) && efi_enabled(EFI_64BIT)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Starting in UEFI v2.5 the EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE
> +		 * config table feature requires us to map all entries
> +		 * in the same order as they appear in the EFI memory
> +		 * map. That is to say, entry N must have a lower
> +		 * virtual address than entry N+1. This is because the
> +		 * firmware toolchain leaves relative references in
> +		 * the code/data sections, which are split and become
> +		 * separate EFI memory regions. Mapping things
> +		 * out-of-order leads to the firmware accessing
> +		 * unmapped addresses.
> +		 *
> +		 * Since we need to map things this way whether or not
> +		 * the kernel actually makes use of
> +		 * EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE, let's just switch to this
> +		 * scheme by default for 64-bit.
> +		 */
> +		return efi_map_next_entry_reverse(entry);
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Initial call */
> +	if (!entry)
> +		return memmap.map;
> +
> +	entry += memmap.desc_size;
> +	if (entry >= memmap.map_end)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	return entry;
> +}
> +
> +/*
>   * Map the efi memory ranges of the runtime services and update new_mmap with
>   * virtual addresses.
>   */
> @@ -714,7 +778,8 @@ static void * __init efi_map_regions(int *count, int *pg_shift)
>  	unsigned long left = 0;
>  	efi_memory_desc_t *md;
>  
> -	for (p = memmap.map; p < memmap.map_end; p += memmap.desc_size) {
> +	p = NULL;
> +	while ((p = efi_map_next_entry(p))) {
>  		md = p;
>  		if (!(md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME)) {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> -- 
> 2.1.0
> 
> -- 
> Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/