On 11 July 2018 at 14:05, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Roman,
>
> On 07/11/18 00:51, rba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Roman Bacik <roman.ba...@broadcom.com>
>>
>> When secure boot is enabled, if one loads keys from a FAT formatted
>> eMMC/SD/USB when trying to provision PK/KEK/DB keys via the menu,
>> an assert in StrLen() occurs.
>> This is because the filename starts on odd address, which is not a uint16
>> aligned boundary: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1003
>>
>> Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zh...@intel.com>
>> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen....@intel.com>
>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyanni...@broadcom.com>
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
>> Signed-off-by: Roman Bacik <roman.ba...@broadcom.com>
>> ---
>>  
>> SecurityPkg/VariableAuthenticated/SecureBootConfigDxe/SecureBootConfigFileExplorer.c
>>  | 13 +++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Thank you for sending a well-formed patch.
>
> I notice that you sent this email from <rba...@gmail.com>, which is not
> the same as the Signed-off-by line. I realize you posted from
> <rba...@gmail.com> for technical reasons, and it should be no problem.
>
> However, I *think* in such cases we usually request the following:
>
> - Using your broadcom.com email address, please respond to this patch
> (not my present email, but your original git posting), keeping full
> context, and just repeat your Signed-off-by line (referencing the
> broadcom address).
>
> I'm CC'ing Jordan and Ard for confirmation -- I believe this is what
> we've done in the past, in cases when submitters had to post their work
> from private addresses due to company email issues.
>

Yes, please.

> Technical comments below:
>
>> diff --git 
>> a/SecurityPkg/VariableAuthenticated/SecureBootConfigDxe/SecureBootConfigFileExplorer.c
>>  
>> b/SecurityPkg/VariableAuthenticated/SecureBootConfigDxe/SecureBootConfigFileExplorer.c
>> index 1b6f88804275..19b13a5569a6 100644
>> --- 
>> a/SecurityPkg/VariableAuthenticated/SecureBootConfigDxe/SecureBootConfigFileExplorer.c
>> +++ 
>> b/SecurityPkg/VariableAuthenticated/SecureBootConfigDxe/SecureBootConfigFileExplorer.c
>> @@ -123,6 +123,8 @@ OpenFileByDevicePath(
>>    EFI_FILE_PROTOCOL               *Handle1;
>>    EFI_FILE_PROTOCOL               *Handle2;
>>    EFI_HANDLE                      DeviceHandle;
>> +  CHAR16                          *PathName;
>> +  UINTN                           PathLength;
>>
>>    if ((FilePath == NULL || FileHandle == NULL)) {
>>      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>> @@ -173,6 +175,11 @@ OpenFileByDevicePath(
>>      //
>>      Handle2  = Handle1;
>>      Handle1 = NULL;
>> +    PathLength = DevicePathNodeLength(*FilePath) - 
>> sizeof(EFI_DEVICE_PATH_PROTOCOL);
>> +    PathName = AllocateCopyPool(PathLength, 
>> ((FILEPATH_DEVICE_PATH*)*FilePath)->PathName);
>
> (1) On both lines above, space characters are missing after:
> DevicePathNodeLength, sizeof, and AllocateCopyPool. (Edk2 coding style.)
> I think we can fix this up for you when we push the patch. (I'm willing
> to help with that, but we need SecurityPkg maintainer review first.)
>
>
>> +    if (PathName == NULL) {
>> +      return EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES;
>> +    }
>
> (2) I have now reviewed the original state of the function more
> carefully, and, while the above "return" branch introduces a leak
> *path*, it does not introduce a leak that doesn't already exist!
>
> In fact, the original function has multiple issues:
>
> - If the OpenVolume() call fails, "FileHandle" is set to NULL. That's
> useless; the intent is obviously to set (*FileHandle) to NULL.
>
> - At the top of the "while" loop body, "Handle1" stands for an open
> EFI_FILE_PROTOCOL. If the device path type check at the top of the loop
> body returns EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER, then it (a) performs the same
> useless assignment to "FileHandle" as described above, and (b) fails to
> close "Handle1". This is why I say that the above EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES
> branch introduces no new leak, just a new path to the existent leak.
>
> - The OpenFileByDevicePath() function is duplicated in the following
> modules: "NetworkPkg/TlsAuthConfigDxe/TlsAuthConfigImpl.c", and
> "MdeModulePkg/Universal/Disk/RamDiskDxe/RamDiskFileExplorer.c". With the
> implication that the alignment issue you found affects all three drivers!
>
>
> Roman, I realize this could be more than what you signed up for; so
> please pick one:
>
> (2a) you could submit a patch series:
>
> * Write a patch that sets (*FilePath) to NULL right after the
> (FileHandle==NULL) check, in preparation for failure, and removes all
> the bogus FileHandle=NULL assignments.
>
> * Write another patch that plugs the leak when the device path type
> check fails -- introduce a "CloseHandle1" label at the end of the
> function, and jump to it when the devpath type check fails, so that we
> close "Handle1". This patch should also invert the meanings of Handle2
> and Handle1 -- the reassignment to Handle1 should only occur *after* we
> successfully open Handle2. "Handle1" should *always* remain suitable for
> closing through the "CloseHandle1" error path.
>
> * Include your current patch, for fixing the alignment issue.
>
> * Write another patch that moves the OpenFileByDevicePath() function to
> UefiLib in MdePkg -- under the name EfiOpenFileByDevicePath() -- from
> SecureBootConfigDxe.
>
> * write two more patches, namely for TlsAuthConfigDxe and RamDiskDxe, in
> order to consume EfiOpenFileByDevicePath() from UefiLib. Both of those
> modules already depend on UefiLib.
>
> (2b) Alternatively:
>
> * we can report a new TianoCore BZ about the issues I list above,
>
> * we can commit this patch of yours as-is, just additionally reference
> the *new* BZ in the commit message, as "further known issues",
>
> * I can work on the rest of the issues.
>
>
> If you pick (2b), then I can
> - file the new BZ,
> - update the commit message for you,
> - update the patch for you, as described in (1),
> - ACK this patch (as updated above),
> - push the patch (if SecurityPkg maintainers agree),
> - take on the new BZ as well.
>
> Thanks!
> Laszlo
>
>>
>>      //
>>      // Try to test opening an existing file
>> @@ -180,7 +187,7 @@ OpenFileByDevicePath(
>>      Status = Handle2->Open (
>>                            Handle2,
>>                            &Handle1,
>> -                          ((FILEPATH_DEVICE_PATH*)*FilePath)->PathName,
>> +                          PathName,
>>                            OpenMode &~EFI_FILE_MODE_CREATE,
>>                            0
>>                           );
>> @@ -192,7 +199,7 @@ OpenFileByDevicePath(
>>        Status = Handle2->Open (
>>                              Handle2,
>>                              &Handle1,
>> -                            ((FILEPATH_DEVICE_PATH*)*FilePath)->PathName,
>> +                            PathName,
>>                              OpenMode,
>>                              Attributes
>>                             );
>> @@ -202,6 +209,8 @@ OpenFileByDevicePath(
>>      //
>>      Handle2->Close (Handle2);
>>
>> +    FreePool (PathName);
>> +
>>      if (EFI_ERROR(Status)) {
>>        return (Status);
>>      }
>>
>
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to