Re: [RFC 0/3] extend kexec_file_load system call

[Stewart Smith]

Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:58:09AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> Hello Eric,
>> 
>> Am Dienstag, 12 Juli 2016, 08:25:48 schrieb Eric W. Biederman:
>> > AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > > Device tree blob must be passed to a second kernel on DTB-capable
>> > > archs, like powerpc and arm64, but the current kernel interface
>> > > lacks this support.
>> > > 
>> > > This patch extends kexec_file_load system call by adding an extra
>> > > argument to this syscall so that an arbitrary number of file descriptors
>> > > can be handed out from user space to the kernel.
>> > > 
>> > > See the background [1].
>> > > 
>> > > Please note that the new interface looks quite similar to the current
>> > > system call, but that it won't always mean that it provides the "binary
>> > > compatibility."
>> > > 
>> > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2016-June/016276.html
>> > 
>> > So this design is wrong.  The kernel already has the device tree blob,
>> > you should not be extracting it from the kernel munging it, and then
>> > reinserting it in the kernel if you want signatures and everything to
>> > pass.
>> > 
>> > What x86 does is pass it's equivalent of the device tree blob from one
>> > kernel to another directly and behind the scenes.  It does not go
>> > through userspace for this.
>> > 
>> > Until a persuasive case can be made for going around the kernel and
>> > probably adding a feature (like code execution) that can be used to
>> > defeat the signature scheme I am going to nack this.
>> 
>> There are situations where userspace needs to change things in the device 
>> tree to be used by the next kernel.
>> 
>> For example, Petitboot (the boot loader used in OpenPOWER machines) is a 
>> userspace application running in an intermediary Linux instance and uses 
>> kexec to load the target OS. It has to modify the device tree that will be 
>> used by the next kernel so that the next kernel uses the same console that 
>> petitboot was configured to use (i.e., set the /chosen/linux,stdout-path 
>> property). It also modifies the device tree to allow the kernel to inherit 
>> Petitboot's Openfirmware framebuffer.
>
> Can some of this be done with the help of kernel command line options for
> second kernel?

how would this be any more secure?

Passing in an address for a framebuffer via command line option means
you could scribble over any bit of memory, which is the same kind of
damage you could do by modifying the device tree.

-- 
Stewart Smith
OPAL Architect, IBM.