[PATCH v3] arm64/efi: efistub: jump to 'stext' directly, not through the header

[Mark Rutland]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 08:03:52PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 9 October 2014 19:23, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
> > Hi Ard,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:11:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> After the EFI stub has done its business, it jumps into the kernel by
> >> branching to offset #0 of the loaded Image, which is where it expects
> >> to find the header containing a 'branch to stext' instruction.
> >>
> >> However, the UEFI spec 2.1.1 states the following regarding PE/COFF
> >> image loading:
> >> "A UEFI image is loaded into memory through the LoadImage() Boot
> >> Service. This service loads an image with a PE32+ format into memory.
> >> This PE32+ loader is required to load all sections of the PE32+ image
> >> into memory."
> >>
> >> In other words, it is /not/ required to load parts of the image that are
> >> not covered by a PE/COFF section, so it may not have loaded the header
> >> at the expected offset, as it is not covered by any PE/COFF section.
> >
> > What does this mean for handle_kernel_image? Given we might not have
> > _text through to _stext mapped, do we not need to take that into
> > account?
> >
> 
> Actually, handle_kernel_image() does not interpret the header, it just
> copies it along with the rest of the image if it needs to be
> relocated, so I don't see an issue there.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough with my concern. My concern was whether we
had any guarantee _something_ was mapped for the address range covering
efi_head to stext.

So long as _something_ is mapped there, we're ok -- handle_kernel_image
will just copy some garbage along with the usable portion of the kernel.

But if the EFI loader is allowed to load stext at the precise start of
RAM (or anywhere not in the idmap), in attempting the copy we'd try to
access unmapped addresses.

So if that's a possibility, we need to shrink the copy to cover stext
to _edata rather than _text to edata.

Does that make sense?

> However, I do remember Mark
> Salter mentioning that there is at least one other location that needs
> to be fixed up if this concern is valid. Mark?
> 
> > Also, have we seen problems on any systems yet?
> >
> 
> No, I am not aware of any occurrences of this exact issue, this is
> just one of the things I spotted while working on this code.

Ok. I was just curious as to how urgent this was.

> But I think we mostly agree that branching through the header relies
> on behavior of the PE/COFF loader that is not covered by the spec.

Yes. We should not rely on unspecified behaviour.

Mark.