Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the PE-COFF header

From	Gary Lin <glin@suse.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the PE-COFF header
Date	2017-04-14 06:00 +0200
Message-ID	<tw0yR-4r2-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<tv1dE-5J4-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tvVpv-Xu-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 03:21:20PM -0700, hpa@zytor.com wrote:
> On April 11, 2017 3:20:41 AM PDT, Gary Lin <glin@suse.com> wrote:
> >This commit adds the new config options to allow the user to modify the
> >following fields in the PE-COFF header.
> >
> >UINT16 MajorOperatingSystemVersion
> >UINT16 MinorOperatingSystemVersion
> >UINT16 MajorImageVersion
> >UINT16 MinorImageVersion
> >
> >Those fields are mainly for the executables or libraries in Windows NT
> >or higher to specify the minimum supported Windows version and the
> >version of the image itself.
> >
> >Given the fact that those fields are ignored in UEFI, we can safely
> >reuse
> >those fields for other purposes, e.g. Security Version(*).
> >
> >(*) https://github.com/lcp/shim/wiki/Security-Version
> >
> >Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> >Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> >Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> >Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> >Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>
> >Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
> >Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> >Cc: Joey Lee <jlee@suse.com>
> >Cc: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>
> >Signed-off-by: Gary Lin <glin@suse.com>
> >Tested-by: Joey Lee <jlee@suse.com>
> >---
[snip]
> 
> Reusing PECOFF fields seems doubleplusunsafe: we don't own those fields, the UEFI forum does.  It would make a lot more sense to add these fields to the bzImage header directly or indirectly (via a pointer), the latter would be more economical since the bzImage header size is bounded.
> 
> We could even define it as a pointer to a "security information header" with its own size field, so it can be grown in the future as needed.
Reusing PE-COFF simplifies the implementation since shim can parse the
header directly. I can raise the issue to the UEFI forum to clarify the
usage of those fields.

Meanwhile, I'll also look into the bzImage header in case the PE-COFF
header is really a NO-GO.

Thanks,

Gary Lin

Thread

[RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the PE-COFF header Gary Lin <glin@suse.com> - 2017-04-11 12:30 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the PE-COFF header Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2017-04-11 19:40 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the  PE-COFF header Gary Lin <glin@suse.com> - 2017-04-12 05:40 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the PE-COFF header hpa@zytor.com - 2017-04-14 00:30 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the  PE-COFF header Gary Lin <glin@suse.com> - 2017-04-14 06:00 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Config options to assign versions in the PE-COFF header hpa@zytor.com - 2017-04-14 07:30 +0200

csiph-web