Re: [PATCH] riscv/efistub: Ensure GP-relative addressing is not used

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 14:44, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 16.01.24 09:36, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 06:21, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 15.01.24 18:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 at 11:35, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12.01.24 19:56, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:51:16 PST (-0800), Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Jan,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 19:37, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The cflags for the RISC-V efistub were missing -mno-relax, thus were
> >>>>>>> under the risk that the compiler could use GP-relative addressing. That
> >>>>>>> happened for _edata with binutils-2.41 and kernel 6.1, causing the
> >>>>>>> relocation to fail due to an invalid kernel_size in handle_kernel_image.
> >>>>>>> It was not yet observed with newer versions, but that may just be luck.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Something like this should go to stable as well, but we will need
> >>>>>>> rebased patches.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile | 2 +-
> >>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> >>>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> >>>>>>> index 06964a3c130f..d561d7de46a9 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
> >>>>>>> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_ARM)          += -DEFI_HAVE_STRLEN
> >>>>>>> -DEFI_HAVE_STRNLEN \
> >>>>>>>                                    -DEFI_HAVE_MEMCHR
> >>>>>>> -DEFI_HAVE_STRRCHR \
> >>>>>>>                                    -DEFI_HAVE_STRCMP -fno-builtin
> >>>>>>> -fpic \
> >>>>>>>                                    $(call
> >>>>>>> cc-option,-mno-single-pic-base)
> >>>>>>> -cflags-$(CONFIG_RISCV)         += -fpic -DNO_ALTERNATIVE
> >>>>>>> +cflags-$(CONFIG_RISCV)         += -fpic -DNO_ALTERNATIVE -mno-relax
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can we detect the presence of these references (via the relocation
> >>>>>> type)? We already do something similar for ordinary absolute
> >>>>>> references too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If there's no `__global_pointer$` symbol then the linker won't make
> >>>>> GP-relative relaxations (because it doesn't know where GP is).  We
> >>>>> usually define that symbol in the linker script, but I'm not entierly
> >>>>> sure how libstub gets its linker script...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The stub seems to be linked together with the rest of the kernel, thus
> >>>> the regular arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S is used.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Indeed - the EFI stub is part of the same executable as vmlinux, we
> >>> just mangle the symbol names to ensure that only code that can be
> >>> safely called from the EFI stub can be linked to it.
> >>>
> >>> If the effect of -mno-relax is to stop emitting R_RISCV_RELAX
> >>> relocations, we should perhaps add those to the STUBCOPY_RELOC-y
> >>> Makefile variable? (in the same file). BTW R_RISCV_HI20 doesn't seem
> >>> like the right value there to begin with: the idea of that is to
> >>> disallow ELF relocations that evaluate to expressions that can only be
> >>> known at runtime (like absolute addresses for global pointer
> >>> variables)
> >>
> >> How to do that best? Simply replace R_RISCV_HI20 with R_RISCV_RELAX?
> >>
> >
> > We'll need to keep the HI20, in fact - I got confused between HI20 and
> > PCREL_HI20, and the former is actually used for 32-bit absolute
> > addresses in 32-bit code.
> >
> > This seems to do the trick: it disallows relaxation relocations and
> > native word sizes absolute references. AFAICT, those are the only ones
> > we should care about.
> >
> > STUBCOPY_RELOC-$(CONFIG_RISCV) := -E
> > R_RISCV_HI20\|R_RISCV_$(BITS)\|R_RISCV_RELAX
>
> I would suggest to do that on top of this patch. Want me to write such a
> patch, or will you? You can probably more fluently explain why
> R_RISCV_32/64 is important, I would first have to understand what that
> is exactly. :)
>

Sure, I can take care of that.

For your patch,

Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>

I'll queue this up as a EFI fix.