[PATCH 2/2] test/py: efi_secboot: adjust secure boot tests to code changes

[AKASHI Takahiro]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:18:03AM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:50:08AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > Ilias,
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 09:37:50AM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > The previous patch is changing U-Boot's behavior wrt certificate based
> > > binary authentication.  Specifically an image who's digest of a
> > > certificate is found in dbx is now rejected.  Fix the test accordingly
> > > and add another one testing signatures in reverse order
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > > changes since RFC:
> > > - Added another test cases checking signature hashes in reverse order
> > >  test/py/tests/test_efi_secboot/test_signed.py | 30 +++++++++++++++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_efi_secboot/test_signed.py b/test/py/tests/test_efi_secboot/test_signed.py
> > > index 0aee34479f55..cc9396a11d48 100644
> > > --- a/test/py/tests/test_efi_secboot/test_signed.py
> > > +++ b/test/py/tests/test_efi_secboot/test_signed.py
> > > @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ class TestEfiSignedImage(object):
> > >              assert 'Hello, world!' in ''.join(output)
> > >  
> > >          with u_boot_console.log.section('Test Case 5c'):
> > > -            # Test Case 5c, not rejected if one of signatures (digest of
> > > +            # Test Case 5c, rejected if one of signatures (digest of
> > >              # certificate) is revoked
> > >              output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([
> > >                  'fatload host 0:1 4000000 dbx_hash.auth',
> > > @@ -195,7 +195,8 @@ class TestEfiSignedImage(object):
> > >              output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([
> > >                  'efidebug boot next 1',
> > >                  'efidebug test bootmgr'])
> > > -            assert 'Hello, world!' in ''.join(output)
> > > +            assert '\'HELLO\' failed' in ''.join(output)
> > > +            assert 'efi_start_image() returned: 26' in ''.join(output)
> > >  
> > >          with u_boot_console.log.section('Test Case 5d'):
> > >              # Test Case 5d, rejected if both of signatures are revoked
> > > @@ -209,6 +210,31 @@ class TestEfiSignedImage(object):
> > >              assert '\'HELLO\' failed' in ''.join(output)
> > >              assert 'efi_start_image() returned: 26' in ''.join(output)
> > >  
> > > +        # Try rejection in reverse order.
> > 
> > "Reverse order" of what?
> 
> Of the test right above

Please specify the signature database, I guess "dbx"?

> > 
> > > +        u_boot_console.restart_uboot()
> > 
> > I don't think we need 'restart' here.
> > I added it in each test function (not test case), IIRC, because we didn't
> > have file-based non-volatile variables at that time.
> 
> You do. dbx already holds dbx_hash.auth and dbx1_hash.auth (in that order) at 
> that point.  The point is cleaning up dbx and testing against dbx1_hash.

Why not simply overwrite "dbx" variable?
Without "-a", "env set -e" does it if it is properly signed with KEK.

> > 
> > > +        with u_boot_console.log.section('Test Case 5e'):
> > > +            # Test Case 5e, authenticated even if only one of signatures
> > > +            # is verified. Same as before but reject dbx_hash1.auth only
> > 
> > Please specify what test case "before" means.
> 
> The test that run right before that

Please add a particular test case number to avoid any ambiguity.
I believe that a test case description should be easy enough to understand
and convey no ambiguity especially if there is some subtle difference
between cases.

> > 
> > > +            output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([
> > > +                'host bind 0 %s' % disk_img,
> > > +                'fatload host 0:1 4000000 db.auth',
> > > +                'setenv -e -nv -bs -rt -at -i 4000000:$filesize db',
> > > +                'fatload host 0:1 4000000 KEK.auth',
> > > +                'setenv -e -nv -bs -rt -at -i 4000000:$filesize KEK',
> > > +                'fatload host 0:1 4000000 PK.auth',
> > > +                'setenv -e -nv -bs -rt -at -i 4000000:$filesize PK',
> > > +                'fatload host 0:1 4000000 db1.auth',
> > > +                'setenv -e -nv -bs -rt -at -a -i 4000000:$filesize db',
> > > +                'fatload host 0:1 4000000 dbx_hash1.auth',
> > > +                'setenv -e -nv -bs -rt -at -i 4000000:$filesize dbx'])
> > 
> > Now "db" has db.auth and db1.auth in this order and
> > 'dbx" has dbx_hash1.auth.
> > Is this what you intend to test?
> 
> Yes.  The patchset solved 2 bugs.  One was not rejecting the image when a
> single dbx entry was found.  The second was that depending on the order the
> image was signed and the keys inserted into dbx, the code could reject or
> accept the image.

Which part of "dbx" (or "db"?) is in a reverse order?

-Takahiro Akashi


> > 
> > -Takahiro Akashi
> > 
> > > +            assert 'Failed to set EFI variable' not in ''.join(output)
> > > +            output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([
> > > +                'efidebug boot add -b 1 HELLO host 0:1 /helloworld.efi.signed_2sigs -s ""',
> > > +                'efidebug boot next 1',
> > > +                'efidebug test bootmgr'])
> > > +            assert '\'HELLO\' failed' in ''.join(output)
> > > +            assert 'efi_start_image() returned: 26' in ''.join(output)
> > > +
> > >      def test_efi_signed_image_auth6(self, u_boot_console, efi_boot_env):
> > >          """
> > >          Test Case 6 - using digest of signed image in database
> > > -- 
> > > 2.32.0
> > > 
> 
> Regards
> /Ilias