Re: Discuss support for the linux kernel's EFI Handover Protocol on x86 and ARM

[Michael Chang]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:58:54AM +0000, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:59:38AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > Am 10.01.2019 um 09:12 schrieb Michael Chang <address@hidden>:
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > With the advent of new verifier framework and shim lock protocol support
> > > to the grub's community, we are driving to the world of UEFI Secure
> > > Boot, well, almost ..
> > > 
> > > There is a missing piece in the puzzle remaining, that is booting linux
> > > kernel via it's own EFI Handover Protocol's entry. Strictly speaking,
> > > the interface is not part of the UEFI Secure Boot, but we have to use it
> > > to avoid problem of using UEFI LoadImage Protocol, which will not work
> > > with shim and it's Machine Owner Key (MOK) as they are not part of
> > > firmware's KEK and db.
> > 
> > So really dumb question here: What if we didn't use the MS key? What
> > if instead, we just provide a SUSE/openSUSE key and give customers
> > the ability to sign their own grub+Linux binaries?
> > 
> > Then we would only need to lobby with platform vendors to include
> > our public key in the delivered Keystore in parallel and everything
> > would "just work".
> > 
> > The only reason shim needs to provide its own key management is that
> > on most x86 systems, we (and customers) don't have control over the
> > keystore, right? We can just push to not have that problem on ARM.
> 
> Sure. That's a valid (and I think Ard would say preferable) decision,
> and should "just work" with upstream GRUB. But that's for each distro
> to decide.

It will work as far as it goes. I think part of the reason shim was used
is that early x86 UEFI Secure Boot shipped without function to disable
it and also no way to enter setup mode. It is then become some sort of
vendor lock-in and has legal concern to the open source software like
grub if it gets signed to prevent from freely distributed. If ARM
provides setup mode and user has the freedom to manipulate on the
firmware stores then I think shim may not be necessary.

> > Am I missing anything?

As time goes by shim has also evolved to do the work than it was
expected originally. Here listed some of related features to consider
when we get rid of shim or the MOK key store it manages. I don't know
ARM folks consider these real issue or not, just for information.

1. Key revocation: To revoke a key in db would require the authenticate
varaible support in linux, I didn't know its status much yet. And also
it means each distro requires to work with vendor to get its variable
signed, compared with shim that each disto could revoke their key
indendently it brings way more complex and overhead in the process.  

2. Some distribution may be using kernel module signing which chains to
the MOK store as it is easier to updat from the OS. 

3. The Shim's fallback mode has been used to recreate boot entries after
firmware update for x86, not sure if that any problem for ARM.

> 
> As I understand it, there was a concern with the wording in UEFI
> 2.(3?, 4?) that made it possible to interpret it such that only one key
> had to be supported.
> 
> It all comes down to who wants to make sure the key is already in
> shipped systems..

Do you think all vendors and distro will have to use common secure
channel to communicate the key distribution related issues ?

Thanks,
Michael

> 
> /
>     Leif
>