Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Mar 2023 15:10:04 +0300 | From | Evgeniy Baskov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 21/26] efi/x86: Explicitly set sections memory attributes |
| |
On 2023-03-11 20:39, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 at 16:09, Evgeniy Baskov <baskov@ispras.ru> wrote: >> >> On 2023-03-10 18:20, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 13:42, Evgeniy Baskov <baskov@ispras.ru> wrote: >> >> >> >> Explicitly change sections memory attributes in efi_pe_entry in case >> >> of incorrect EFI implementations and to reduce access rights to >> >> compressed kernel blob. By default it is set executable due to >> >> restriction in maximum number of sections that can fit before zero >> >> page. >> >> >> >> Tested-by: Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Evgeniy Baskov <baskov@ispras.ru> >> > >> > I don't think we need this patch. Firmware that cares about W^X will >> > map the PE image with R-X for text/rodata and RW- for data/bss, which >> > is sufficient, and firmware that doesn't is a lost cause anyway. >> >> This patch were here mainly here to make .rodata non-executable and >> for >> the UEFI handover protocol, for which attributes are usually not >> getting >> applied. >> >> Since the UEFI handover protocol is deprecated, I'll exclude patches >> from >> v5 and maybe submit it separately modified to apply attributes only >> when >> booting via this protocol. >> > > I think the issue here is that loaders that use the UEFI handover > protocol use their own implementations of LoadImage/StartImage as > well, and some of those tend to do little more than copy the image > into memory and jump to the EFI handover protocol entry point, without > even accounting for the image size in memory or clearing the bss. >
AFAIK this patch does not break loaders that load PE image as a flat binary, since it only operates on ELF sections that are mapped 1-to-1. But that's just the note for a future.
> To be honest, even though I understand the reason these had to be > implemented, I'm a bit reluctant to cater for the needs of such > loaders, given that these are all downstream distro forks of GRUB > (with shim) with varying levels of adherence to the PE/COFF spec. > > I'm happy to revisit this later if others feel this is important, but > for the moment, I'd prefer it if we could focus on making the x86 > image work better with compliant loaders, which is what this series is > primarily about.
That's very reasonable. I'll put this patch aside for now then.
| |