public inbox for devel@edk2.groups.io
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Zhang, Chao B" <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
To: "Zeng, Star" <star.zeng@intel.com>,
	"Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@gmail.com>,
	"edk2-devel@lists.01.org" <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, "Yao, Jiewen" <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] SecurityPkg: fix ZeroMem HashInterfaceHob
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:35:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <FF72C7E4248F3C4E9BDF19D4918E90F249661FD3@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0C09AFA07DD0434D9E2A0C6AEB0483103BA47DA0@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>

Star:
   Why do we need to add HashInterfaceHob->SupportedHashMask = 0?  HashInterfaceHob is internally maintained and accessed by HashLibRouterPei.
There is no impact to leave the value after module has been re-shadowed.




From: Zeng, Star
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 11:10 PM
To: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@gmail.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Zhang, Chao B <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>; Zeng, Star <star.zeng@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2] [PATCH v2 1/1] SecurityPkg: fix ZeroMem HashInterfaceHob

Yes, since the V1 has been pushed.
Just adding one line like below based on V1 should be ok.

HashInterfaceHob->SupportedHashMask = 0;


Thanks,
Star
-----Original Message-----
From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Marc-André Lureau
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:56 PM
To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>>; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com<mailto:jiewen.yao@intel.com>>; Zhang, Chao B <chao.b.zhang@intel.com<mailto:chao.b.zhang@intel.com>>; Zeng, Star <star.zeng@intel.com<mailto:star.zeng@intel.com>>
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v2 1/1] SecurityPkg: fix ZeroMem HashInterfaceHob

Hi

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:24 PM,  <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com<mailto:marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>> wrote:
> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com<mailto:marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>>
>
> The ZeroMem() call goes beyond the HashInterfaceHob structure, causing
> HOB list corruption. The intent was to clear all but the Identifier,
> that is starting from HashInterfaceCount.
>

I see v1 is already applied. I'll send another patch to clear the mask in the Ovmf/TPM series.

Thanks

> Quoting Laszlo Ersek:
>   Therefore I think the *first* approach to actually fixing this bug would
>   be to simply add the "Count" suffix:
>
>   > diff --git a/SecurityPkg/Library/HashLibBaseCryptoRouter/HashLibBaseCryptoRouterPei.c b/SecurityPkg/Library/HashLibBaseCryptoRouter/HashLibBaseCryptoRouterPei.c
>   > index dbee0f2531bc..a869fffae3fe 100644
>   > --- a/SecurityPkg/Library/HashLibBaseCryptoRouter/HashLibBaseCryptoRouterPei.c
>   > +++ b/SecurityPkg/Library/HashLibBaseCryptoRouter/HashLibBaseCryptoRouterPei.c
>   > @@ -424,7 +424,10 @@ HashLibBaseCryptoRouterPeiConstructor (
>   >      // This is the second execution of this module, clear the hash interface
>   >      // information registered at its first execution.
>   >      //
>   > -    ZeroMem (&HashInterfaceHob->HashInterface, sizeof (*HashInterfaceHob) - sizeof (EFI_GUID));
>   > +    ZeroMem (
>   > +      &HashInterfaceHob->HashInterfaceCount,
>   > +      sizeof (*HashInterfaceHob) - sizeof (EFI_GUID)
>   > +      );
>   >    }
>   >
>   >    //
>
>   On the other hand, I don't think such a fix would be great. First of
>   all, the HASH_INTERFACE_HOB struct definition is not wrapped in
>
>   #pragma pack (1)
>   ...
>   #pragma pack ()
>
>   in other words, HASH_INTERFACE_HOB is not packed, hence there could be
>   an unspecified amount of padding between "Identifier" and
>   "HashInterfaceCount". That would lead to the same kind of buffer
>   overflow, because "Length" includes the padding, but the "Buffer"
>   argument doesn't.
>
>   Second, even if there were no padding (and thus the byte count would be
>   a perfect match for the full HOB structure), in the "Buffer" argument
>   we take the address of the "HashInterfaceCount" field, and with the
>   "Length" field, we still overflow that *individual* field. Although we
>   wouldn't overflow the containing HOB structure, this is still (arguably)
>   undefined behavior -- I seem to remember that some compilers actually
>   blow up on this when you use the standard ISO C memcpy() or memset()
>   functions in such contexts.
>
> This patch takes Laszlo suggestion to fix the issue.
>
> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com<mailto:jiewen.yao@intel.com>>
> Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com<mailto:chao.b.zhang@intel.com>>
> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com<mailto:star.zeng@intel.com>>
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>>
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com<mailto:marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>>
> ---
>  .../HashLibBaseCryptoRouter/HashLibBaseCryptoRouterPei.c   | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git
> a/SecurityPkg/Library/HashLibBaseCryptoRouter/HashLibBaseCryptoRouterP
> ei.c
> b/SecurityPkg/Library/HashLibBaseCryptoRouter/HashLibBaseCryptoRouterP
> ei.c index dbee0f2531bc..84c1aaae70eb 100644
> ---
> a/SecurityPkg/Library/HashLibBaseCryptoRouter/HashLibBaseCryptoRouterP
> ei.c
> +++ b/SecurityPkg/Library/HashLibBaseCryptoRouter/HashLibBaseCryptoRou
> +++ terPei.c
> @@ -397,6 +397,7 @@ HashLibBaseCryptoRouterPeiConstructor (  {
>    EFI_STATUS            Status;
>    HASH_INTERFACE_HOB    *HashInterfaceHob;
> +  UINTN                 ClearStartOffset;
>
>    HashInterfaceHob = InternalGetHashInterfaceHob (&gZeroGuid);
>    if (HashInterfaceHob == NULL) {
> @@ -424,7 +425,11 @@ HashLibBaseCryptoRouterPeiConstructor (
>      // This is the second execution of this module, clear the hash interface
>      // information registered at its first execution.
>      //
> -    ZeroMem (&HashInterfaceHob->HashInterface, sizeof (*HashInterfaceHob) - sizeof (EFI_GUID));
> +    ClearStartOffset = OFFSET_OF (HASH_INTERFACE_HOB, HashInterfaceCount);
> +    ZeroMem (
> +      (UINT8 *)HashInterfaceHob + ClearStartOffset,
> +      sizeof (*HashInterfaceHob) - ClearStartOffset
> +      );
>    }
>
>    //
> --
> 2.16.2.346.g9779355e34
>
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel



--
Marc-André Lureau
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-07 15:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-07 11:24 [PATCH v2 1/1] SecurityPkg: fix ZeroMem HashInterfaceHob marcandre.lureau
2018-03-07 14:55 ` Marc-André Lureau
2018-03-07 15:09   ` Zeng, Star
2018-03-07 15:35     ` Zhang, Chao B [this message]
2018-03-07 20:55       ` Laszlo Ersek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-list from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=FF72C7E4248F3C4E9BDF19D4918E90F249661FD3@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox