[edk2-devel] [RFC] MemoryProtectionLib for Dynamic Memory Guard Settings

[Wang, Jian J]

Thanks for the RFC. I'm not object to this idea. The only concern from me
is the potential security holes introduced by the changes. According to your
description, it allows 3rd party software to violate memory protection policy.
I'd like to see more explanations on how to avoid it to be exploited.

+Jiewen, what's current process to evaluate the security threat?

Regards,
Jian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taylor Beebe <t at taylorbeebe.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 8:33 AM
> To: devel at edk2.groups.io
> Cc: spbrogan at outlook.com; Dong, Eric <eric.dong at intel.com>; Ni, Ray
> <ray.ni at intel.com>; Kumar, Rahul1 <Rahul1.Kumar at intel.com>;
> mikuback at linux.microsoft.com; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang at intel.com>; Wu,
> Hao A <hao.a.wu at intel.com>; Bi, Dandan <dandan.bi at intel.com>;
> gaoliming at byosoft.com.cn; Dong, Guo <guo.dong at intel.com>; Ma, Maurice
> <maurice.ma at intel.com>; You, Benjamin <benjamin.you at intel.com>
> Subject: [RFC] MemoryProtectionLib for Dynamic Memory Guard Settings
> 
> Current memory protection settings rely on FixedAtBuild PCD values
> (minus PcdSetNxForStack). Because of this, the memory protection
> configuration interface is fixed in nature. Cases arise in which memory
> protections might need to be adjusted between boots (if platform design
> allows) to avoid disabling a system. For example, platforms might choose
> to allow the user to control their protection policies such as allow
> execution of critical 3rd party software that might violate memory
> protections.
> 
> This RFC seeks your feedback regarding introducing an interface that
> allows dynamic configuration of memory protection settings.
> 
> I would like to propose two options:
> 1. Describing the memory protection setting configuration in a HOB that
> is produced by the platform.
> 2. Introducing a library class (e.g. MemoryProtectionLib) that allows
> abstraction of the memory protection setting configuration data source.
> 
> In addition, I would like to know if the memory protection FixedAtBuild
> PCDs currently in MdeModulePkg can be removed so we can move the
> configuration interface entirely to an option above.
> 
> In any case, I would like the settings to be visible to environments
> such as Standalone MM where dynamic PCDs are not accessible.
> 
> I am seeking your feedback on this proposal in preparation for sending
> an edk2 patch series.
> 
> --
> Taylor Beebe
> Software Engineer @ Microsoft


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#78331): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/78331
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/84392478/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-