Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Change PageTableLib #2

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Change PageTableLib #2

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

niruiyu
Copy link
Owner

@niruiyu niruiyu commented Apr 4, 2023

No description provided.

@niruiyu niruiyu closed this Apr 4, 2023
niruiyu pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2023
Root cause:
1. Before DisableReadonlyPageWriteProtect() is called, the return
address (#1) is pushed in shadow stack.
2. CET is disabled.
3. DisableReadonlyPageWriteProtect() returns to #1.
4. Page table is modified.
5. EnableReadonlyPageWriteProtect() is called, but the return
address (#2) is not pushed in shadow stack.
6. CET is enabled.
7. EnableReadonlyPageWriteProtect() returns to #2.
#CP exception happens because the actual return address (#2)
doesn't match the return address stored in shadow stack (#1).

Analysis:
Shadow stack will stop update after CET disable (DisableCet() in
DisableReadOnlyPageWriteProtect), but normal smi stack will be
continue updated with the function called and return
(DisableReadOnlyPageWriteProtect & EnableReadOnlyPageWriteProtect),
thus leading stack mismatch after CET re-enabled (EnableCet() in
EnableReadOnlyPageWriteProtect).

According SDM Vol 3, 6.15-Control Protection Exception:
Normal smi stack and shadow stack must be matched when CET enable,
otherwise CP Exception will happen, which is caused by a near RET
instruction.

CET is disabled in DisableCet(), while can be enabled in
EnableCet(). This way won't cause the problem because they are
implemented in a way that return address of DisableCet() is
poped out from shadow stack (Incsspq performs a pop to increases
the shadow stack) and EnableCet() doesn't use "RET" but "JMP" to
return to caller. So calling EnableCet() and DisableCet() doesn't
have the same issue as calling DisableReadonlyPageWriteProtect()
and EnableReadonlyPageWriteProtect().

With above root cause & analysis, define below 2 macros instead of
functions for WP & CET operation:
WRITE_UNPROTECT_RO_PAGES (Wp, Cet)
WRITE_PROTECT_RO_PAGES (Wp, Cet)
Because DisableCet() & EnableCet() must be in the same function
to avoid shadow stack and normal SMI stack mismatch.

Note: WRITE_UNPROTECT_RO_PAGES () must be called pair with
WRITE_PROTECT_RO_PAGES () in same function.

Change-Id: I4e126697efcd8dbfb4887da034d8691bfca969e3
Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
Cc: Zeng Star <star.zeng@intel.com>
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: Rahul Kumar <rahul1.kumar@intel.com>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiaxin Wu <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
niruiyu pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2024
REF:https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4535

Bug Details:
PixieFail Bug #2
CVE-2023-45230
CVSS 8.3 : CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:H
CWE-119 Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds
 of a Memory Buffer

Changes Overview:
> -UINT8 *
> +EFI_STATUS
>  Dhcp6AppendOption (
> -  IN OUT UINT8   *Buf,
> -  IN     UINT16  OptType,
> -  IN     UINT16  OptLen,
> -  IN     UINT8   *Data
> +  IN OUT EFI_DHCP6_PACKET  *Packet,
> +  IN OUT UINT8             **PacketCursor,
> +  IN     UINT16            OptType,
> +  IN     UINT16            OptLen,
> +  IN     UINT8             *Data
>    );

Dhcp6AppendOption() and variants can return errors now.  All callsites
are adapted accordingly.

It gets passed in EFI_DHCP6_PACKET as additional parameter ...

> +  //
> +  // Verify the PacketCursor is within the packet
> +  //
> +  if (  (*PacketCursor < Packet->Dhcp6.Option)
> +     || (*PacketCursor >= Packet->Dhcp6.Option +
 (Packet->Size - sizeof (EFI_DHCP6_HEADER))))
> +  {
> +    return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> +  }

... so it can look at Packet->Size when checking buffer space.
Also to allow Packet->Length updates.

Lots of checks added.

Cc: Saloni Kasbekar <saloni.kasbekar@intel.com>
Cc: Zachary Clark-williams <zachary.clark-williams@intel.com>

Signed-off-by: Doug Flick [MSFT] <doug.edk2@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Saloni Kasbekar <saloni.kasbekar@intel.com>
niruiyu pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2024
This patch does not impact functionality. It aims to clarify the
synchronization flow between the BSP and APs to enhance code
readability and understanding:

Steps tianocore#6 and tianocore#11 are the basic synchronization requirements for all
cases.

Steps #1 is additional requirements if the MmCpuSyncModeTradition
mode is selected.

Steps #1, #2, #3, tianocore#4, tianocore#5, tianocore#7, tianocore#8, tianocore#9, and tianocore#10 are additional
requirements if the system needs to configure the MTRR.

Steps tianocore#9 and tianocore#10 are additional requirements if the system needs to
support the mSmmDebugAgentSupport.

Signed-off-by: Jiaxin Wu <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
niruiyu pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2024
… func

This patch is for PiSmmCpuDxeSmm driver to add one round wait/release sync
for BSP and AP to perform the SMM CPU Platform Hook before executing MMI
Handler: SmmCpuPlatformHookBeforeMmiHandler (). With the function, SMM CPU
driver can perform the platform specific items after one round BSP and AP
sync (to make sure all APs in SMI) and before the MMI handlers.

After the change, steps #1 and #2 are additional requirements if the
MmCpuSyncModeTradition mode is selected.

Signed-off-by: Jiaxin Wu <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant