Re: GSoC Proposal


Ada Christine <adachristine18@...>
 

i can submit up to three proposals. I'll give all of this some thought and
a little research and start putting at least two proposals together
starting Friday. :)

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 15:15 Marvin Häuser <mhaeuser@...> wrote:


On 13. Apr 2022, at 16:38, Ada Christine <adachristine18@...> wrote:

i was replying via the groups.io web interface, I'm guessing that messed
up
the thread? i haven't used mailing lists before and don't know how they
work. I'll use my mail client from here on.

I'm on board with not treating EFI as an operating system. the more i think
about it the more it looks like scope creep.


Agreed.

I'm not quite as enthusiastic
about it as i was at first glance.

I'm still keen on doing my gsoc proposal for edk, though, and even if this
task and the acpica application are decided to be out of scope unit
testing,


How about fuzz-testing? This is also something edk2 needs quite badly. At
Acidanthera, we compile edk2 code in userspace outside the edk2 build
system and fuzz with dummy applications.

clang integration


Pedro and Vitaly are looking for someone to finish ASan:
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/90010978#87991
There are working UBSan concepts, but they also need to be mainlined.

and source-level debugging are all relevant to
my interests.

how about your ideas for security stuff?


I want the entirety of MM to leverage SmmMemLib and to support SMAP.
SmmMemLib would then handle UEFI->MMRAM and BaseMemoryLib would only work
on MMRAM. Also evaluation of how to best avoid pointers in MM communication
buffers would be nice.

There also is a bunch of other stuff, like working out moving a part of
CpuDxe into DxeCore to have memory protection live immediately, memory
protection in PEI, a replacement for the TE format (it’s buggy and most
platforms mostly abandoned it over various issues), and alternatives to
guarding critical code with SMM (like allowing NVRAM commits only as part
of a reboot).

I personally find all of those projects very important, but I cannot
promise many people agree. Especially those that impose global changes
(most notably the TE replacement) may be very tedious to submit. Gladly, I
believe you can submit multiple proposals (?)

Best regards,
Marvin

I'm not very knowledgeable about
trusted platform or secure boot but I'm willing to learn whatever is
necessary to get something spun up for my proposal.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022, 12:05 Marvin Häuser <mhaeuser@...> wrote:

Do you use the “reply all” option in your mail client? Looks like my CCs

have been dropped again. Comments inline.


On 13. Apr 2022, at 12:54, Ada Christine <adachristine18@...>

wrote:

Hi, Marvin


Its similarity to my own latest experiment is the key to what grabbed my

attention. I have no particular use case in mind for it, but I see its

potential for anybody developing larger applications in that when a library

is changed there's no need to distribute a new version of the whole binary,

just the relevant library module.


I really do not like the trend of treating UEFI as a full-fledged OS - it

is not. The most used UEFI applications, OS loaders, are really not that

huge and are distributed as part of the OS image anyway. Even for less used

applications, you will always get a full snapshot anyhow. Gladly we don’t

have auto-update and package management yet. :)



I slept on it and it occurred to me that the whole thing could operate

similarly to the shell protocol in that the linker/loader is itself an

application that does a LoadImage() on the application needing dynamic

linking facilities.


That would mean the linker itself is shipped with every application that

requires it? Otherwise it doesn’t make much sense for it to be an app and

below’s problems apply.


If however the whole plan is making the linker as a DXE and including it

with the firmware, that I'm not quite as sure about. That would necessarily

tie any applications using dynamic linking to TianoCore or any firmware

distribution that derives from it.


I think that was the idea referred to as “edk2 core” by Steven, but I’d

like to hear his proposal to be sure. Virtually everyone uses edk2, so that

itself is not the problem, but versioning is. Vendors are slow to update

their snapshots or have just given up doing that entirely. Distributing it

for external applications like OS loaders would mean this can be leveraged

probably no earlier than 10 years from now. And for in-firmware things, I

have a hard time thinking about a use-case that outweighs the drawbacks.



To shift the topic slightly back to GSoC, however, I'm willing to work

on other items on the task list. Unit testing and an ACPICA application are

the alternative projects I had thought about. I need to choose fairly soon

as the proposal deadline is next Tuesday. I know a tiny bit about porting

ACPICA as I also have plans to incorporate it into my own project.


I have a few more ideas for security stuff, but Nate did not confirm them

as appropriate yet and I’m not here to drive you away from this specific

task (or the others). However, I’m still curious and concerned. :)


Best regards,

Marvin







Join discuss@edk2.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.