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
next prev parent 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