Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/2] Handle UEFI NX-restricted page tables

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 09:06, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 at 17:39, <baskov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-03-18 19:37, Peter Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 08:47:59PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 04:42:07PM +0300, baskov@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >> > On 2022-02-28 21:30, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >> > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 05:45:53PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Given that this is a workaround for a very specific issue arising on
> > >> > > > PI based implementations of UEFI, I consider this a quirk, and so I
> > >> > > > think this approach is reasonable. I'd still like to gate it on some
> > >> > > > kind of identification, though - perhaps something related to DMI like
> > >> > > > the x86 core kernel does as well.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > When the V1 patches were reviewed, you suggested allocating
> > >> > > EFI_LOADER_CODE rather than EFI_LOADER_DATA. The example given for a
> > >> > > failure case is when NxMemoryProtectionPolicy is set to 0x7fd4, in which
> > >> > > case EFI_LOADER_CODE, EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_CODE and
> > >> > > EFI_RUNTIEM_SERVICES_CODE should not have the nx policy applied. So it
> > >> > > seems like your initial suggestion (s/LOADER_DATA/LOADER_CODE/) should
> > >> > > have worked, even if there was disagreement about whether the spec
> > >> > > required it to. Is this firmware applying a stricter policy?
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, this firmware is being modified to enforce stricter policy.
> > >>
> > >> Ok. I think this should really go through the UEFI spec process - I
> > >> agree that from a strict interpretation of the spec, what this
> > >> firmware
> > >> is doing is legitimate, but I don't like having a situation where we
> > >> have to depend on the DXE spec.
> > >
> > > It's in the process of getting into the UEFI spec now as
> > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3519 .
> > >
> > >> How does Windows handle this? Just update the page tables itself for
> > >> any
> > >> regions it needs during boot?
> > >
> > > Microsoft's bootloader sets up its own pagetables, though I believe
> > > they're switching it to use the (soon to be) standardized API.
> >
> > The third version of the patch is the most close in structure
> > to the proposed protocol. And until the protocol is standardized and
> > implemented on problematic firmware, I think, it remains the better
> > solution in terms of simplicity and further porting to the new
> > protocol.
> >
> > It is desirable to get the issue resolved, and make the kernel stricter
> > comply to the spec, without waiting for the new API implementation.
> > And later, switch the kernel to be using the protocol with
> > subsequent patches as soon as it gets usable.
> >
> > So, is there a chance for these patches to be accepted in current
> > form, or with some modifications?
> >
>
> I am fine with taking the v3, as it is the most likely to only affect
> the systems that actually need this change in behavior.
>
> So unless there are any objections, I will queue these up after the
> merge window.

I have queued these up now.