Ard Biesheuvel [Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:36:15 +0000 (10:36 +0000)]
ArmPkg/CpuDxe ARM: honour RO/XP attributes in SetMemoryAttributes()
Enable the use of strict memory permissions on ARM by processing the
EFI_MEMORY_RO and EFI_MEMORY_XP rather than ignoring them. As before,
calls to CpuArchProtocol::SetMemoryAttributes that only set RO/XP
bits will preserve the cacheability attributes. Permissions attributes
are not preserved when setting the memory type only: the way the memory
permission attributes are defined does not allows for that, and so this
situation does not deviate from other architectures.
Page and section entries in the page tables are updated using the
helper ArmUpdateTranslationTableEntry(), which cleans the page
table entry to the PoC, and invalidates the TLB entry covering
the page described by the entry being updated.
Since we may be updating section entries, we might be leaving stale
TLB entries at this point (for all pages in the section except the
first one), which will be invalidated wholesale at the end of
SetMemoryAttributes(). At that point, all caches are cleaned *and*
invalidated as well.
This cache maintenance is costly and unnecessary. The TLB maintenance
is only necessary if we updated any section entries, since any page
by page entries that have been updated will have been invalidated
individually by ArmUpdateTranslationTableEntry().
So drop the clean/invalidate of the caches, and only perform the
full TLB flush if UpdateSectionEntries() was called, or if sections
were split by UpdatePageEntries(). Finally, make the cache maintenance
on the remapped regions themselves conditional on whether any memory
type attributes were modified.
Currently, any range passed to CpuArchProtocol::SetMemoryAttributes is
fully broken down into page mappings if the start or the size of the
region happens to be misaliged relative to the section size of 1 MB.
This is going to result in memory being wasted on second level page tables
when we enable strict memory permissions, given that we remap the entire
RAM space non-executable (modulo the code bits) when the CpuArchProtocol
is installed.
So refactor the code to iterate over the range in a way that ensures
that all naturally aligned section sized subregions are not broken up.
Architectures such as AArch64 may run the OS with 16 KB or 64 KB sized
pages, and for this reason, the UEFI spec mandates a minimal allocation
granularity of 64 KB for regions that may require different memory
attributes at OS runtime.
So make PeiCore's implementation of AllocatePages () take this into
account as well.
Ard Biesheuvel [Fri, 3 Mar 2017 15:11:31 +0000 (15:11 +0000)]
MdePkg/ProcessorBind: add defines for page allocation granularity
The UEFI spec differs between architectures in the minimum alignment
and granularity of page allocations that are visible to the OS as
EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME regions.
So define macros that carry these values to the respective ProcessorBind.h
header files.
Leo Duran [Thu, 2 Mar 2017 23:36:03 +0000 (07:36 +0800)]
UefiCpuPkg/CpuDxe: Add support for PCD PcdPteMemoryEncryptionAddressOrMask
This PCD holds the address mask for page table entries when memory
encryption is enabled on AMD processors supporting the Secure Encrypted
Virtualization (SEV) feature.
The mask is applied when page tables entries are created or modified.
CC: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com> Cc: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Leo Duran <leo.duran@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
Hao Wu [Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:54:10 +0000 (11:54 +0800)]
UefiCpuPkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
Hao Wu [Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:44:04 +0000 (11:44 +0800)]
SourceLevelDebugPkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
Hao Wu [Fri, 17 Feb 2017 03:00:45 +0000 (11:00 +0800)]
ShellPkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Hao Wu [Fri, 17 Feb 2017 02:08:13 +0000 (10:08 +0800)]
SecurityPkg/Opal: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Hao Wu [Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:46:27 +0000 (09:46 +0800)]
PcAtChipsetPkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Hao Wu [Thu, 16 Feb 2017 06:58:03 +0000 (14:58 +0800)]
NetworkPkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Hao Wu [Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:04:26 +0000 (16:04 +0800)]
IntelFspWrapperPkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Hao Wu [Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:51:01 +0000 (13:51 +0800)]
IntelFsp2WrapperPkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Hao Wu [Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:24:50 +0000 (11:24 +0800)]
IntelFrameworkModulePkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
Hao Wu [Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:17:52 +0000 (10:17 +0800)]
FatPkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Hao Wu [Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:01:34 +0000 (10:01 +0800)]
MdeModulePkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Hao Wu [Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:22:15 +0000 (16:22 +0800)]
MdePkg: Refine casting expression result to bigger size
There are cases that the operands of an expression are all with rank less
than UINT64/INT64 and the result of the expression is explicitly cast to
UINT64/INT64 to fit the target size.
An example will be:
UINT32 a,b;
// a and b can be any unsigned int type with rank less than UINT64, like
// UINT8, UINT16, etc.
UINT64 c;
c = (UINT64) (a + b);
Some static code checkers may warn that the expression result might
overflow within the rank of "int" (integer promotions) and the result is
then cast to a bigger size.
The commit refines codes by the following rules:
1). When the expression is possible to overflow the range of unsigned int/
int:
c = (UINT64)a + b;
2). When the expression will not overflow within the rank of "int", remove
the explicit type casts:
c = a + b;
3). When the expression will be cast to pointer of possible greater size:
UINT32 a,b;
VOID *c;
c = (VOID *)(UINTN)(a + b); --> c = (VOID *)((UINTN)a + b);
4). When one side of a comparison expression contains only operands with
rank less than UINT32:
UINT8 a;
UINT16 b;
UINTN c;
if ((UINTN)(a + b) > c) {...} --> if (((UINT32)a + b) > c) {...}
For rule 4), if we remove the 'UINTN' type cast like:
if (a + b > c) {...}
The VS compiler will complain with warning C4018 (signed/unsigned
mismatch, level 3 warning) due to promoting 'a + b' to type 'int'.
Hao Wu [Mon, 23 Jan 2017 06:38:43 +0000 (14:38 +0800)]
ShellPkg: Refine type cast for pointer subtraction
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
Hao Wu [Mon, 23 Jan 2017 01:59:25 +0000 (09:59 +0800)]
SecurityPkg: Refine type cast for pointer subtraction
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
Hao Wu [Mon, 23 Jan 2017 05:55:42 +0000 (13:55 +0800)]
NetworkPkg: Refine type cast for pointer subtraction
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
Hao Wu [Mon, 23 Jan 2017 01:53:45 +0000 (09:53 +0800)]
IntelFrameworkModulePkg: Refine type cast for pointer subtraction
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
Hao Wu [Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:12:06 +0000 (10:12 +0800)]
CryptoPkg: Refine type cast for pointer subtraction
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
Hao Wu [Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:56:05 +0000 (11:56 +0800)]
MdeModulePkg: Refine type cast for pointer subtraction
For pointer subtraction, the result is of type "ptrdiff_t". According to
the C11 standard (Committee Draft - April 12, 2011):
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object; the
result is the difference of the subscripts of the two array elements. The
size of the result is implementation-defined, and its type (a signed
integer type) is ptrdiff_t defined in the <stddef.h> header. If the result
is not representable in an object of that type, the behavior is
undefined."
In our codes, there are cases that the pointer subtraction is not
performed by pointers to elements of the same array object. This might
lead to potential issues, since the behavior is undefined according to C11
standard.
Also, since the size of type "ptrdiff_t" is implementation-defined. Some
static code checkers may warn that the pointer subtraction might underflow
first and then being cast to a bigger size. For example:
Zhang, Chao B [Fri, 3 Mar 2017 05:59:57 +0000 (13:59 +0800)]
MdeModulePkg: Variable: Update DBT PCR[7] measure
Measure DBT into PCR[7] when it is updated between initial measure
if present and not empty. by following TCG PC Client PFP 00.49
Previous patch for PCR[7] DBT part is overrode. dc9bd6ed281fcba5358f3004632bdbda968be1e5
Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Cc: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Zhang, Chao B [Fri, 3 Mar 2017 05:56:10 +0000 (13:56 +0800)]
SecurityPkg: Tcg2Dxe: Measure DBT into PCR[7]
Measure DBT into PCR[7] in initial measurement phase if present and
not empty by following TCG PC Client PFP 00.49.
The previous patch according to 00.21 is removed 1404e3a1508473643efba89af34bd133ab082dd5
Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Cc: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Zhang, Chao B [Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:15:01 +0000 (11:15 +0800)]
SecurityPkg: Tcg2Dxe: Measure BootOrder, Boot#### to PCR[1]
Measure BootOrder, Boot#### to PCR[1] according to TCG PC-Client PFP Spec
00.21 Section 2.4.4.2
http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/PC-ClientSpecific_Platform_Profile_for_TPM_2p0_Systems_v21.pdf
Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Cc: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Yao Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
The InitializeConsolePipe() routine takes care to only set its output
argument *Interface if it is not already set, to prevent overwriting
the ConSplitter interface pointer that may have already been assigned.
However, the associated OUT argument 'Handle' is clobbered by the
subsequent unnecessary LocateDevicePath() invocation, which should
similarly be made dependent on whether *Interface has been set
already.
In batch script file NmakeSubdirs.bat, the value changes made to the
variable 'TOOL_ERROR' within the 'setlocal...endlocal' block will not be
reflected in the return value of the script. A value of 0 will always be
returned. Thus, the script will not reflect the result of the 'nmake'
command correctly when building BaseTool source codes.
Hao Wu [Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:03:30 +0000 (11:03 +0800)]
MdeModulePkg/PrintDxe: Handle the deprecation of [A|U]ValueToString
To handle the deprecation of PrintLib APIs UnicodeValueToString and
AsciiValueToString by subsequent commits, the commit refines the logic for
the implemetation of the UnicodeValueToString and AsciiValueToString
services in EFI_PRINT2_PROTOCOL.
When the macro DISABLE_NEW_DEPRECATED_INTERFACES is defined (indicating
the deprecation of the PrintLib APIs), the above two services will ASSERT
and will return zero to reflect not being supported.
Ard Biesheuvel [Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:10:59 +0000 (14:10 +0000)]
ArmVirtPkg AARCH64: enable NX memory protection for all platforms
This sets the recently introduced PCD PcdDxeNxMemoryProtectionPolicy to
a value that protects all memory regions except code regions against
inadvertent execution.
Note that this does not [yet] protect EfiLoaderData regions, due to
compatibility issues with shim and GRUB.
Ard Biesheuvel [Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:05:25 +0000 (08:05 +0000)]
ArmVirtPkg: move UefiBootManagerLib resolution to ArmVirt.dsc.inc
Recent changes to ShellPkg require a resolution for UefiBootManagerLib
for all platforms in ArmVirtPkg. So move the resolution to the shared
include ArmVirt.dsc.inc.
Ard Biesheuvel [Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:45:47 +0000 (13:45 +0000)]
ArmVirtPkg/HighMemDxe: preserve non-exec permissions on newly added regions
Using DxeServices::SetMemorySpaceAttributes to set cacheability
attributes has the side effect of stripping permission attributes,
given that those are bits in the same bitfield, and so setting the
Attributes argument to EFI_MEMORY_WB implies not setting EFI_MEMORY_XP
or EFI_MEMORY_RO attributes.
In fact, the situation is even worse, given that the descriptor returned
by DxeServices::GetMemorySpaceDescriptor does not reflect the permission
attributes that may have been set by the preceding call to
DxeServices::AddMemorySpace if PcdDxeNxMemoryProtectionPolicy has been
configured to map EfiConventionalMemory with non-executable permissions.
Note that this applies equally to the non-executable stack and to PE/COFF
sections that may have been mapped with R-X or RW- permissions. This is
due to the ambiguity in the meaning of the EFI_MEMORY_RO/EFI_MEMORY_XP
attributes when used in the GCD memory map, i.e., between signifying
that an underlying RAM region has the controls to be configured as
read-only or non-executable, and signifying that the contents of a
certain UEFI memory region allow them to be mapped with certain
restricted permissions.
So let's check the policy in PcdDxeNxMemoryProtectionPolicy directly,
and set the EFI_MEMORY_XP attribute if appropriate for
EfiConventionalMemory regions.
Zhang Lubo [Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:01:12 +0000 (17:01 +0800)]
SecurityPkg: Fix potential bug in Security Boot dxe.
v2: update hash value in SecureBootConfig.vfr to keep
them consistent with macro definition in SecureBootConfigImpl.h
since we removed the sha-1 definition in Hash table
and related macro, but the macro definition HashAlg index
may be value 4 which is exceed the range of the Hash
table array.
Make [-D Macros] as optional argument for GenCfgOpt
Cc: Maurice Ma <maurice.ma@intel.com> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Richard Thomaiyar <richard.marian.thomaiyar@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Maurice Ma <maurice.ma@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Leo Duran [Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:43:07 +0000 (01:43 +0800)]
UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: Add support for PCD PcdPteMemoryEncryptionAddressOrMask
This PCD holds the address mask for page table entries when memory
encryption is enabled on AMD processors supporting the Secure Encrypted
Virtualization (SEV) feature.
The mask is applied when page tables entriees are created or modified.
CC: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com> Cc: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Leo Duran <leo.duran@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
Leo Duran [Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:43:06 +0000 (01:43 +0800)]
MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/BootScriptExecutorDxe: Add support for PCD PcdPteMemoryEncryptionAddressOrMask
This PCD holds the address mask for page table entries when memory
encryption is enabled on AMD processors supporting the Secure Encrypted
Virtualization (SEV) feature.
This module updates the under-4GB page tables configured by the S3-Resume
code in UefiCpuPkg/Universal/Acpi/S3Resume2Pei. The mask is saved at module
start (ScriptExecute.c), and applied when tables are expanded on-demand by
page-faults above 4GB's (SetIdtEntry.c).
CC: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com> Cc: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Leo Duran <leo.duran@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Leo Duran [Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:43:05 +0000 (01:43 +0800)]
UefiCpuPkg/Universal/Acpi/S3Resume2Pei: Add support for PCD PcdPteMemoryEncryptionAddressOrMask
This PCD holds the address mask for page table entries when memory
encryption is enabled on AMD processors supporting the Secure Encrypted
Virtualization (SEV) feature.
The mask is applied when page tables are created (S3Resume.c).
CC: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com> Cc: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Leo Duran <leo.duran@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
Leo Duran [Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:43:04 +0000 (01:43 +0800)]
MdeModulePkg/Universal/CapsulePei: Add support for PCD PcdPteMemoryEncryptionAddressOrMask
This PCD holds the address mask for page table entries when memory
encryption is enabled on AMD processors supporting the Secure Encrypted
Virtualization (SEV) feature.
The mask is applied when 4GB tables are created (UefiCapsule.c), and when
the tables are expanded on-demand by page-faults above 4GB's (X64Entry.c).
Cc: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Leo Duran <leo.duran@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Leo Duran [Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:43:03 +0000 (01:43 +0800)]
MdeModulePkg/Core/DxeIplPeim: Add support for PCD PcdPteMemoryEncryptionAddressOrMask
This PCD holds the address mask for page table entries when memory
encryption is enabled on AMD processors supporting the Secure Encrypted
Virtualization (SEV) feature.
The mask is applied when creating page tables.
Cc: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Leo Duran <leo.duran@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
This PCD holds the address mask for page table entries when memory
encryption is enabled on AMD processors supporting the Secure Encrypted
Virtualization (SEV) feature.
Cc: Feng Tian <feng.tian@intel.com> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Leo Duran <leo.duran@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Hao Wu [Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:18:53 +0000 (14:18 +0800)]
BaseTools/GenVtf & VolInfo: Fix build fail for 'snprintf' not defined
Function snprintf() is not supported in Visual Studio 2013 or older
version. The commit replaces the use of snprintf() with sprintf() to avoid
build failure for VS compilers.
This implements a DXE memory protection policy that ensures that regions
that don't require executable permissions are mapped with the non-exec
attribute set.
First of all, it iterates over all entries in the UEFI memory map, and
removes executable permissions according to the configured DXE memory
protection policy, as recorded in PcdDxeNxMemoryProtectionPolicy.
Secondly, it sets or clears the non-executable attribute when allocating
or freeing pages, both for page based or pool based allocations.
Note that this complements the image protection facility, which applies
strict permissions to BootServicesCode/RuntimeServicesCode regions when
the section alignment allows it. The memory protection configured by this
patch operates on non-code regions only.
Ard Biesheuvel [Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:36:38 +0000 (10:36 +0000)]
MdeModulePkg: define PCD for DXE memory protection policy
Define a new fixed/patchable PCD that sets the DXE memory protection
policy: its primary use is to define which memory types should have
their executable permissions removed. Combined with the image protection
policy, this can be used to implement a strict W^X policy, i.e.. a policy
where no regions exist that are both executable and writable at the same
time.
Ard Biesheuvel [Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:21:18 +0000 (14:21 +0000)]
MdeModulePkg/DxeCore: use separate lock for pool allocations
In preparation of adding memory permission attribute management to
the pool allocator, split off the locking of the pool metadata into
a separate lock. This is an improvement in itself, given that pool
allocations can only interfere with the page allocation bookkeeping
if pool pages are allocated or released. But it is also required to
ensure that the permission attribute management does not deadlock,
given that it may trigger page table splits leading to additional
page tables being allocated.
Ard Biesheuvel [Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:45:24 +0000 (16:45 +0000)]
MdeModulePkg/EbcDxe: use EfiBootServicesCode memory for thunks
The EBC driver emits thunks for native to EBC calls, which are short
instructions sequences that bridge the gap between the native execution
environment and the EBC virtual machine.
Since these thunks are allocated using MemoryAllocationLib::AllocatePool(),
they are emitted into EfiBootServicesData regions, which does not reflect
the nature of these thunks accurately, and interferes with strict memory
protection policies that map data regions non-executable.
So instead, create a new helper EbcAllocatePoolForThunk() that invokes the
AllocatePool() boot service directly to allocate EfiBootServicesCode pool
memory explicitly, and wire up this helper for the various architecture
specific thunk generation routines.
Ard Biesheuvel [Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:57:03 +0000 (09:57 +0000)]
MdeModulePkg/PeiCore: allocate BootServicesCode memory for PE/COFF images
Ensure that any memory allocated for PE/COFF images is identifiable as
a boot services code region, so that we know it requires its executable
permissions to be preserved when we tighten mapping permissions later on.
Ard Biesheuvel [Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:58:38 +0000 (09:58 +0000)]
ArmPkg/CpuDxe: ignore attribute changes during SyncCacheConfig()
To prevent the initial MMU->GCD memory space map synchronization from
stripping permissions attributes [which we cannot use in the GCD memory
space map, unfortunately], implement the same approach as x86, and ignore
SetMemoryAttributes() calls during the time SyncCacheConfig() is in
progress. This is a horrible hack, but is currently the only way we can
implement strict permissions on arbitrary memory regions [as opposed to
PE/COFF text/data sections only]
Dandan Bi [Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:04:13 +0000 (16:04 +0800)]
MdeModulePkg: Fix coding style issues
1. Make function comments align with the function.
2. Change the FILE_GUID value in SmmSmiHandlerProfileLib.inf
since it is duplicated with the FILE_GUID value in
SmiHandlerProfileLibNull.inf
3. Add missing PCD PROMPT&HELP string to uni file.
Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Dandan Bi <dandan.bi@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Dandan Bi [Mon, 27 Feb 2017 05:33:06 +0000 (13:33 +0800)]
MdeModulePkg/BMMUiLib: Replace same logic with API in UefiBootManagerLib
Use the API　EfiBootManagerDeleteLoadOptionVariable in UefiBootManagerLib　to
replace the same logic in function Var_DelBootOption/Var_DelDriverOption.
This can make code clean and prevent potential bugs.
Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com> Cc: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Dandan Bi <dandan.bi@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
Qin Long [Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:46:07 +0000 (14:46 +0800)]
CryptoPkg/OpensslLib: Upgrade OpenSSL version to 1.0.2k
v2:
Re-generate the patch after the new OpensslLibCrypto instance.
OpenSSL 1.0.2k was released with several severity fixes at
26-Jan-2017 (https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20170126.txt).
This patch is to upgrade the supported OpenSSL version in
CryptoPkg/OpensslLib to catch the latest release 1.0.2k.
This removes the PCD PcdArmUncachedMemoryMask from ArmPkg, along with
any remaining references to it in various platform .DSC files. It is
no longer used now that we removed the virtual uncached pages protocol
and the associated DebugUncachedMemoryAllocationLib library instance.
The only observeable effect of having PcdPerformanceLibraryPropertyMask
set to 1 is that a EfiReservedMemory region of 4 pages is allocated right
below the 4 GB mark. This region is out of bounds for the OS, which means
it is not even allowed to map it, to avoid speculative loads from it.
On Linux, this may prevent the kernel from using a 1 GB block mapping for
this region, and instead it has to carve up the block as follows:
0xffffffff80000000-0xffffffffbe000000 992M PMD CON BLK
0xffffffffbe000000-0xffffffffbfe00000 30M PMD BLK
0xffffffffbfe00000-0xffffffffbfff0000 1984K PTE CON
0xffffffffbfff0000-0xffffffffbfffc000 48K PTE
where it would otherwise use a single 1 GB mapping (*), i.e.,
0xffffffff80000000-0xffffffffc0000000 1G PGD
To clarify, the latter is a single 8 byte entry in the top level page
table, whereas in the former case, we have two additional levels of
paging, requiring two extra 4 KB pages (on a 4 KB pagesize kernel).
The real cost, however, is the TLB footprint, which goes up from a
single entry to a number between 90 and 1020, depending on whether
contiguous hints are honoured by the hardware.
So let's remove PcdPerformanceLibraryPropertyMask until we find a reason
why we need it.
(*) provided that no other allocations were deliberately located right
below the 4 GB mark, and that we are running with more than 3 GB of
memory, in which case most allocations will be over 4 GB, given EDK2's
default top-down allocation policy.
Jiaxin Wu [Thu, 23 Feb 2017 05:28:57 +0000 (13:28 +0800)]
NetworkPkg/Ip6Dxe: Ignore duplicated DNS address check
Having duplicated DNS server IPs specified is not an ideal
configuration, but not an error condition. This patch is to
remove the duplicated DNS address check to allow the same DNS
address setting in SetData().
Cc: Hegde Nagaraj P <nagaraj-p.hegde@hpe.com> Cc: Subramanian Sriram <sriram-s@hpe.com> Cc: Ye Ting <ting.ye@intel.com> Cc: Fu Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Wu Jiaxin <jiaxin.wu@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Subramanian Sriram <sriram-s@hpe.com> Reviewed-by: Hegde Nagaraj P <nagaraj-p.hegde@hpe.com> Tested-by: Hegde Nagaraj P <nagaraj-p.hegde@hpe.com>
Jiaxin Wu [Thu, 23 Feb 2017 05:27:18 +0000 (13:27 +0800)]
MdeModulePkg/Ip4Dxe: Ignore duplicated DNS address check
Having duplicated DNS server IPs specified is not an ideal
configuration, but not an error condition. This patch is to
remove the duplicated DNS address check to allow the same DNS
address setting in SetData().
Cc: Hegde Nagaraj P <nagaraj-p.hegde@hpe.com> Cc: Subramanian Sriram <sriram-s@hpe.com> Cc: Ye Ting <ting.ye@intel.com> Cc: Fu Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Wu Jiaxin <jiaxin.wu@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Subramanian Sriram <sriram-s@hpe.com> Reviewed-by: Hegde Nagaraj P <nagaraj-p.hegde@hpe.com> Tested-by: Hegde Nagaraj P <nagaraj-p.hegde@hpe.com>
Ard Biesheuvel [Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:51:04 +0000 (17:51 +0000)]
MdeModulePkg/DxeCore: base code protection on permission attributes
Instead of assuming that a PE/COFF section of type EFI_IMAGE_SCN_CNT_CODE
can always be mapped read-only, classify a section as a code section only
if it has the executable attribute set and the writable attribute cleared.
This adheres more closely to the PE/COFF spec, and avoids issues with
Linux OS loaders that may consist of a single read/write/execute section.
Laszlo Ersek [Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:46:06 +0000 (21:46 +0100)]
OvmfPkg: exclude libssl functionality from OpensslLib if TLS_ENABLE=FALSE
The OpensslLibCrypto library instance (which does not contain libssl
functions) is sufficient for the Secure Boot feature.
Ease security analysis by excluding libssl functionality from the
OpensslLib instance we use with TLS_ENABLE=FALSE.
Cc: Gary Lin <glin@suse.com> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com> Cc: Tomas Hoger <thoger@redhat.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Gary Lin <glin@suse.com>
Laszlo Ersek [Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:42:06 +0000 (21:42 +0100)]
ArmVirtPkg: resolve OpensslLib to OpensslLibCrypto
The OpensslLibCrypto library instance (which does not contain libssl
functions) is sufficient for the Secure Boot feature. It would not be
sufficient for HTTPS booting (which requires TLS), but in ArmVirtPkg, we
don't even enable plaintext HTTP booting for the time being.
Ease security analysis by excluding libssl functionality from the
OpensslLib instance we use.
then the platform never actually uses the libssl functionality that gets
built into "OpensslLib.inf".
Tomas Hoger from Red Hat Product Security tells me that security
evaluation is less demanding if we can actually *exclude* the libssl files
from such OVMF builds that don't specify -D TLS_ENABLE (rather than just
trust modules not to call libssl functions if we don't specify -D
TLS_ENABLE).
This patch introduces a parallel OpensslLib instance called
"OpensslLibCrypto" that is appropriate for platform builds without TLS
enablement. It does not build C source files in vain, and it eases
security review -- all libssl vulnerabilities can be excluded at once.
"OpensslLibCrypto.inf" is created as a copy of "OpensslLib.inf", modifying
the BASE_NAME, MODULE_UNI_FILE and FILE_GUID defines.
"process_files.sh" is extended to auto-generate the list of OpenSSL files
for both library instances accordingly. This list is updated in
"OpensslLibCrypto.inf" at once.
"OpensslLibCrypto.uni" is introduced as a copy of "OpensslLib.uni",
highlighting the difference.
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Cc: Gary Lin <glin@suse.com> Cc: Jiaxin Wu <jiaxin.wu@intel.com> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com> Cc: Qin Long <qin.long@intel.com> Cc: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com> Cc: Ting Ye <ting.ye@intel.com> Cc: Tomas Hoger <thoger@redhat.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Qin Long <qin.long@intel.com>
Laszlo Ersek [Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:47:35 +0000 (19:47 +0100)]
CryptoPkg/OpensslLib: refresh OpensslLib.inf, opensslconf.h after 32387e00
Commit 32387e0081db ("CryptoPkg: Enable ssl build in OpensslLib directly",
2016-12-14) removed the "no-queue" configuration option in
"process_files.sh", plus it enabled "process_files.sh" to place all libssl
source files into "OpensslLib.inf".
However, the patch apparently failed to capture two changes originating
from the above actions:
- the definitions of the OPENSSL_NO_PQUEUE and NO_PQUEUE macros were not
removed from "opensslconf.h",
- "ssl/ssl_conf.c" was not added to "OpensslLib.inf".
Refresh these files, completing commit 32387e0081db.
I built OVMF with -D SECURE_BOOT_ENABLE -D TLS_ENABLE, and ArmVirtQemu
with -D SECURE_BOOT_ENABLE, after this fix, and experienced no regression.
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Cc: Gary Lin <glin@suse.com> Cc: Jiaxin Wu <jiaxin.wu@intel.com> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com> Cc: Qin Long <qin.long@intel.com> Cc: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com> Cc: Ting Ye <ting.ye@intel.com> Cc: Tomas Hoger <thoger@redhat.com>
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Qin Long <qin.long@intel.com>
projects / mirror_edk2.git / log