Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH] s390-bios: Skip bootmap signature entries

[Thomas Huth]

On 06/05/2019 12.10, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.05.19 12:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 29.04.19 15:09, Jason J. Herne wrote:
>>> Newer versions of zipl have the ability to write signature entries to the 
>>> boot
>>> script for secure boot. We don't yet support secure boot, but we need to 
>>> skip
>>> over signature entries while reading the boot script in order to maintain 
>>> our
>>> ability to boot guest operating systems that have a secure bootloader.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <address@hidden>
>>> Reviewed-by: Farhan Ali <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
>>>  pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.h | 10 ++++++----
>>>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c
>>> index 7aef65a..d13b7cb 100644
>>> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c
>>> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.c
>>> @@ -254,7 +254,14 @@ static void run_eckd_boot_script(block_number_t 
>>> bmt_block_nr,
>>>      memset(sec, FREE_SPACE_FILLER, sizeof(sec));
>>>      read_block(block_nr, sec, "Cannot read Boot Map Script");
>>>  
>>> -    for (i = 0; bms->entry[i].type == BOOT_SCRIPT_LOAD; i++) {
>>> +    for (i = 0; bms->entry[i].type == BOOT_SCRIPT_LOAD ||
>>> +                bms->entry[i].type == BOOT_SCRIPT_SIGNATURE; i++) {
>>> +
>>> +        /* We don't support secure boot yet, so we skip signature entries 
>>> */
>>> +        if (bms->entry[i].type == BOOT_SCRIPT_SIGNATURE) {
>>> +            continue;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>>          address = bms->entry[i].address.load_address;
>>>          block_nr = eckd_block_num(&bms->entry[i].blkptr.xeckd.bptr.chs);
>>>  
>>> @@ -489,7 +496,15 @@ static void zipl_run(ScsiBlockPtr *pte)
>>>  
>>>      /* Load image(s) into RAM */
>>>      entry = (ComponentEntry *)(&header[1]);
>>> -    while (entry->component_type == ZIPL_COMP_ENTRY_LOAD) {
>>> +    while (entry->component_type == ZIPL_COMP_ENTRY_LOAD ||
>>> +           entry->component_type == ZIPL_COMP_ENTRY_SIGNATURE) {
>>> +
>>> +        /* We don't support secure boot yet, so we skip signature entries 
>>> */
>>> +        if (entry->component_type == ZIPL_COMP_ENTRY_SIGNATURE) {
>>> +            entry++;
>>> +            continue;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>>          zipl_load_segment(entry);
>>>  
>>>          entry++;
>>> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.h b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.h
>>> index a085212..94f53a5 100644
>>> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.h
>>> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/bootmap.h
>>> @@ -98,8 +98,9 @@ typedef struct ScsiMbr {
>>>  #define ZIPL_COMP_HEADER_IPL    0x00
>>>  #define ZIPL_COMP_HEADER_DUMP   0x01
>>>  
>>> -#define ZIPL_COMP_ENTRY_LOAD    0x02
>>> -#define ZIPL_COMP_ENTRY_EXEC    0x01
>>> +#define ZIPL_COMP_ENTRY_EXEC      0x01
>>> +#define ZIPL_COMP_ENTRY_LOAD      0x02
>>> +#define ZIPL_COMP_ENTRY_SIGNATURE 0x03
>>>  
>>>  typedef struct XEckdMbr {
>>>      uint8_t magic[4];   /* == "xIPL"        */
>>> @@ -117,8 +118,9 @@ typedef struct BootMapScriptEntry {
>>>      BootMapPointer blkptr;
>>>      uint8_t pad[7];
>>>      uint8_t type;   /* == BOOT_SCRIPT_* */
>>> -#define BOOT_SCRIPT_EXEC 0x01
>>> -#define BOOT_SCRIPT_LOAD 0x02
>>> +#define BOOT_SCRIPT_EXEC      0x01
>>> +#define BOOT_SCRIPT_LOAD      0x02
>>> +#define BOOT_SCRIPT_SIGNATURE 0x03
>>>      union {
>>>          uint64_t load_address;
>>>          uint64_t load_psw;
>>>
>>
>> Naive question from me:
>>
>> Can't we place the signatures somewhere else, and instead associate them
>> with entries? This avoids breaking backwards compatibility for the sake
>> of signatures we want unmodified zipl loaders to ignore.
>>
> 
> 
> ... but I guess this is already documented somewhere internally and
> other components have been adjusted. IOW, cannot be changed anymore.
> 
> Guess our implementation should have tolerated other entries than
> "BOOT_SCRIPT_LOAD" right from the beginning.

Hmm, now we only tolerate the _LOAD and _SIGNATURE entries, but still
nothing else... would it make sense to rewrite the code a little bit to
tolerate all other kind of entries, but just act on the well-known _LOAD
entries, so that we do not step into this trap in the future anymore?

 Thomas