Mike, > I believe the current behavior is that only FVs that are either unsigned or > FVs that are signed and pass authentication can be passed from PEI to DXE. > I believe your use case is to pass an FV from PEI to DXE that is signed, but > has not been authenticated yet.
Our use case is PEI signing and verifying FVs (the first case) using the GUIDed encapsulation scheme you contributed a while back (thank you!). From what I can see both in edk2 and in the PI spec there is not an architected mechanism to pass this information. As I mentioned in my first message, the DXE core seems to jam AuthenticationStatus to zero (in calling ProduceFVBProtocolOnBuffer) as it processes FV HOBs. Are you aware of a channel where this information is already being passed from PEI to DXE? The other lingering question I had was why others hadn't seen this before me. I'm guessing that people are choosing different approaches for packaging up PEI and DXE phase components than we are. Thanks, Eugene -----Original Message----- From: Kinney, Michael D [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:54 PM To: Cohen, Eugene <[email protected]>; Gao, Liming <[email protected]>; Zeng, Star <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kinney, Michael D <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [edk2] Authentication status for signed FVs extracted in PEI Eugene, I believe the current behavior is that only FVs that are either unsigned or FVs that are signed and pass authentication can be passed from PEI to DXE. I believe your use case is to pass an FV from PEI to DXE that is signed, but has not been authenticated yet. Given the current PI architecture constraints, would it be a reasonable solution to have an early DXE driver publish the FV that is signed but not authenticated yet, so the DXE phase can do the authentication? Thanks, Mike >-----Original Message----- >From: edk2-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cohen, >Eugene >Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 7:12 AM >To: Gao, Liming; Zeng, Star; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [edk2] Authentication status for signed FVs extracted in PEI > >Liming and Star, > >Thanks for the suggestion for extending the FV HOB. I'm not sure if the >length change will be considered forwards and backwards >compatible for all implementations. If people refer to the HOB by pointer it >shouldn't be a problem but if they try to copy the HOB >using the header length they may have a compatibility problem. > >I'll raise your suggestion at PIWG and see what the group recommends. > >Thanks, > >Eugene > >-----Original Message----- >From: Gao, Liming [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 3:27 AM >To: Zeng, Star <[email protected]>; Cohen, Eugene <[email protected]>; >[email protected] >Subject: RE: [edk2] Authentication status for signed FVs extracted in PEI > >Eugene: > Another idea is to update FV HOB to include authentication status instead of > adding FV HOB3. The consumer code can check FV HOB >Length to know whether FV HOB includes authentication status. > >Thanks >Liming >> -----Original Message----- >> From: edk2-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zeng, >> Star >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 6:19 PM >> To: Cohen, Eugene; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [edk2] Authentication status for signed FVs extracted in PEI >> >> On 2015/11/9 21:57, Cohen, Eugene wrote: >> > Star, >> > >> >> The authentication status and its inheritance support in FvInfo2 and >> >> FvPpi were covered by the mantis we submitted to support >PEI >> security and to be equivalent with DXE. >> > You raised another issue here to inherit authentication status from PEI to >> > DXE. >> > >> > Correct. >> > >> >> Currently, only verified pass FV in PEI will be processed and reported >> >> with FV HOB to DXE. >> > >> > The FV HOB doesn't explicitly say whether the FV was verified or not. We >> > have a use case where we have one FV that contains >code >> and is verified and another FV that contains some data and is not verified. >> With the current FV HOB definitions there's no way to >> differentiate these two. >> >> Curious about the FV you said is root or child FV? >> >> > >> > The DXE core just assumes that all FVs passed through FV hobs are unsigned >> > (AuthenticationStatus = 0). So in DXE-phase security >> policy callbacks (part of EFI_SECURITY_ARCH_PROTOCOL) we are not getting >> accurate AuthenticationStatus values with which to >make a >> decision. >> > >> > So in a way this just seems wrong since the security callbacks are saying >> > that FVs are unsigned when in reality there are signed and >> verified. >> > >> > I'm thinking this could be as simple as an updated FV HOB definition that >> > adds an AuthenticationStatus field. >> >> I agree it is a gap. I have seen the mantis you filed to add FV3 HOB to >> include AuthenticationStatus. Then there will be FV/FV2/FV3 HOB for one >> FV. Seemingly, we could not to just extend FV HOB to include >> AuthenticationStatus, right? >> >> Thanks, >> Star >> >> > >> > Eugene >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Zeng, Star [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 6:43 AM >> > To: Cohen, Eugene <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> > Cc: Zeng, Star <[email protected]> >> > Subject: RE: Authentication status for signed FVs extracted in PEI >> > >> > The authentication status and its inheritance support in FvInfo2 and FvPpi >> > were covered by the mantis we submitted to support >PEI >> security and to be equivalent with DXE. >> > You raised another issue here to inherit authentication status from PEI to >> > DXE. >> > >> > Currently, only verified pass FV in PEI will be processed and reported >> > with FV HOB to DXE. >> > Your real case will have different policy to verify FV in PEI and DXE >> > phase? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Star >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: edk2-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> > Cohen, Eugene >> > Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 9:03 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [edk2] Authentication status for signed FVs extracted in PEI >> > >> > I raised this as an issue with PIWG. In the meantime feel free to provide >> > some historical context for why this hasn't been an issue >in >> other implementations. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Eugene >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: edk2-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> > Cohen, Eugene >> > Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 5:49 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Cc: Thompson, Mark L. (Boise IPG) <[email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: [edk2] Authentication status for signed FVs extracted in PEI >> > >> > [Corrected the typos with a new version - proofreading is a good thing] >> > >> > >> > I'm confused about something and hope I can get some help understanding >> > this. >> > >> > If we have a signed FV that is extracted in PEI it doesn't look like the >> > AuthenticationStatus gets propagated to DXE. >> > >> > The hob doesn't store authentication status and the core produces FVB with >> > AuthenticationStatus forced to zero, even though >the FV >> was signed and verified. >> > >> > This seems to mess up policy code in DXE because it is the >> > AuthenticationStatus is not accurate. >> > >> > MdeModulePkg\Core\Dxe\FwVolBlock\FwVolBlock.c, FwVolBlockDriverInit: >> > >> > while ((FvHob.Raw = GetNextHob (EFI_HOB_TYPE_FV, FvHob.Raw)) != NULL) { >> > // >> > // Produce an FVB protocol for it >> > // >> > ProduceFVBProtocolOnBuffer (FvHob.FirmwareVolume->BaseAddress, >> > FvHob.FirmwareVolume->Length, NULL, 0, NULL); >> > FvHob.Raw = GET_NEXT_HOB (FvHob); >> > } >> > >> > Note the hardcoded zero in the second-to-last argument. >> > >> > Is this expected? How would DXE policy code know if the FV was verified >> > in PEI? It looks like the HOB definitions do not >propagate >> PEI-phase Authentication status forward. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Eugene >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: edk2-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> > Cohen, Eugene >> > Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 11:12 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Cc: Thompson, Mark L. (Boise IPG) <[email protected]> >> > Subject: [edk2] Authentication status for signed FVs extracted in PEI >> > >> > I'm confused about something and hope I can help some help understanding >> > this. >> > >> > If we have a signed FV that is extracted in PEI it doesn't look like the >> > AuthenticationStatus gets propagated to DXE. >> > >> > The hob doesn't store authentication status and the core products FVB with >> > AuthenticationStatus forced to zero, even though the >FV >> was signed and verified. >> > >> > This seems to mess up policy code we want to have in DXE because it is not >> > accurate. >> > >> > MdeModulePkg\Core\Dxe\FwVolBlock\FwVolBlock.c, FwVolBlockDriverInit: >> > >> > while ((FvHob.Raw = GetNextHob (EFI_HOB_TYPE_FV, FvHob.Raw)) != NULL) { >> > // >> > // Produce an FVB protocol for it >> > // >> > ProduceFVBProtocolOnBuffer (FvHob.FirmwareVolume->BaseAddress, >> > FvHob.FirmwareVolume->Length, NULL, 0, NULL); >> > FvHob.Raw = GET_NEXT_HOB (FvHob); >> > } >> > >> > Is this expected? How would DXE policy code know if the FV was verified >> > in PEI? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Eugene >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > edk2-devel mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel >> > _______________________________________________ >> > edk2-devel mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel >> > _______________________________________________ >> > edk2-devel mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> edk2-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel >_______________________________________________ >edk2-devel mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
