fidzu : kernel

I'm looking for a name for a new WiFi area.

The current one is called "Tokyo-Jupiter". It turns out hard to top, it meets all the requirements. It's a geographic area. It's weeb, but from old enough times: not Naruto Shippuuden, Attack On Titan, or Kimetsu no Yaiba. Classy and unique enough.

"Konoha" is too new, too washed-up, and too short.

"Kodena" and "Yokosuka" add a patriotic American tint nicely, but also too short.

"Minas-Tirith" is a place and outstanding in its reference, but not weeb.

"Big-Sight" is an opposite of the above: too much. I'm a weeb, not otaku.

Any ideas are appreciated.

UPDATE 2025-01-11: The provisional candidate is "Nishi-Teppelin". Don't google it, it's not canon. I remain open to better ideas.

11 Jan 2025 1:42am GMT

As part of their "Defective by Design" anti-DRM campaign, the FSF recently made the following claim:
Today, most of the major streaming media platforms utilize the TPM to decrypt media streams, forcefully placing the decryption out of the user's control (from here).
This is part of an overall argument that Microsoft's insistence that only hardware with a TPM can run Windows 11 is with the goal of aiding streaming companies in their attempt to ensure media can only be played in tightly constrained environments.

I'm going to be honest here and say that I don't know what Microsoft's actual motivation for requiring a TPM in Windows 11 is. I've been talking about TPM stuff for a long time. My job involves writing a lot of TPM code. I think having a TPM enables a number of worthwhile security features. Given the choice, I'd certainly pick a computer with a TPM. But in terms of whether it's of sufficient value to lock out Windows 11 on hardware with no TPM that would otherwise be able to run it? I'm not sure that's a worthwhile tradeoff.

What I can say is that the FSF's claim is just 100% wrong, and since this seems to be the sole basis of their overall claim about Microsoft's strategy here, the argument is pretty significantly undermined. I'm not aware of any streaming media platforms making use of TPMs in any way whatsoever. There is hardware DRM that the media companies use to restrict users, but it's not in the TPM - it's in the GPU.

Let's back up for a moment. There's multiple different DRM implementations, but the big three are Widevine (owned by Google, used on Android, Chromebooks, and some other embedded devices), Fairplay (Apple implementation, used for Mac and iOS), and Playready (Microsoft's implementation, used in Windows and some other hardware streaming devices and TVs). These generally implement several levels of functionality, depending on the capabilities of the device they're running on - this will range from all the DRM functionality being implemented in software up to the hardware path that will be discussed shortly. Streaming providers can choose what level of functionality and quality to provide based on the level implemented on the client device, and it's common for 4K and HDR content to be tied to hardware DRM. In any scenario, they stream encrypted content to the client and the DRM stack decrypts it before the compressed data can be decoded and played.

The "problem" with software DRM implementations is that the decrypted material is going to exist somewhere the OS can get at it at some point, making it possible for users to simply grab the decrypted stream, somewhat defeating the entire point. Vendors try to make this difficult by obfuscating their code as much as possible (and in some cases putting some of it in-kernel), but pretty much all software DRM is at least somewhat broken and copies of any new streaming media end up being available via Bittorrent pretty quickly after release. This is why higher quality media tends to be restricted to clients that implement hardware-based DRM.

The implementation of hardware-based DRM varies. On devices in the ARM world this is usually handled by performing the cryptography in a Trusted Execution Environment, or TEE. A TEE is an area where code can be executed without the OS having any insight into it at all, with ARM's TrustZone being an example of this. By putting the DRM code in TrustZone, the cryptography can be performed in RAM that the OS has no access to, making the scraping described earlier impossible. x86 has no well-specified TEE (Intel's SGX is an example, but is no longer implemented in consumer parts), so instead this tends to be handed off to the GPU. The exact details of this implementation are somewhat opaque - of the previously mentioned DRM implementations, only Playready does hardware DRM on x86, and I haven't found any public documentation of what drivers need to expose for this to work.

In any case, as part of the DRM handshake between the client and the streaming platform, encryption keys are negotiated with the key material being stored in the GPU or the TEE, inaccessible from the OS. Once decrypted, the material is decoded (again either on the GPU or in the TEE - even in implementations that use the TEE for the cryptography, the actual media decoding may happen on the GPU) and displayed. One key point is that the decoded video material is still stored in RAM that the OS has no access to, and the GPU composites it onto the outbound video stream (which is why if you take a screenshot of a browser playing a stream using hardware-based DRM you'll just see a black window - as far as the OS can see, there is only a black window there).

Now, TPMs are sometimes referred to as a TEE, and in a way they are. However, they're fixed function - you can't run arbitrary code on the TPM, you only have whatever functionality it provides. But TPMs do have the ability to decrypt data using keys that are tied to the TPM, so isn't this sufficient? Well, no. First, the TPM can't communicate with the GPU. The OS could push encrypted material to it, and it would get plaintext material back. But the entire point of this exercise was to avoid the decrypted version of the stream from ever being visible to the OS, so this would be pointless. And rather more fundamentally, TPMs are slow. I don't think there's a TPM on the market that could decrypt a 1080p stream in realtime, let alone a 4K one.

The FSF's focus on TPMs here is not only technically wrong, it's indicative of a failure to understand what's actually happening in the industry. While the FSF has been focusing on TPMs, GPU vendors have quietly deployed all of this technology without the FSF complaining at all. Microsoft has enthusiastically participated in making hardware DRM on Windows possible, and user freedoms have suffered as a result, but Playready hardware-based DRM works just fine on hardware that doesn't have a TPM and will continue to do so.

comments

02 Jan 2025 1:14am GMT

The distinction between hardware and software has historically been relatively easy to understand - hardware is the physical object that software runs on. This is made more complicated by the existence of programmable logic like FPGAs, but by and large things tend to fall into fairly neat categories if we're drawing that distinction.

Conversations usually become more complicated when we introduce firmware, but should they? According to Wikipedia, Firmware is software that provides low-level control of computing device hardware, and basically anything that's generally described as firmware certainly fits into the "software" side of the above hardware/software binary. From a software freedom perspective, this seems like something where the obvious answer to "Should this be free" is "yes", but it's worth thinking about why the answer is yes - the goal of free software isn't freedom for freedom's sake, but because the freedoms embodied in the Free Software Definition (and by proxy the DFSG) are grounded in real world practicalities.

How do these line up for firmware? Firmware can fit into two main classes - it can be something that's responsible for initialisation of the hardware (such as, historically, BIOS, which is involved in initialisation and boot and then largely irrelevant for runtime[1]) or it can be something that makes the hardware work at runtime (wifi card firmware being an obvious example). The role of free software in the latter case feels fairly intuitive, since the interface and functionality the hardware offers to the operating system is frequently largely defined by the firmware running on it. Your wifi chipset is, these days, largely a software defined radio, and what you can do with it is determined by what the firmware it's running allows you to do. Sometimes those restrictions may be required by law, but other times they're simply because the people writing the firmware aren't interested in supporting a feature - they may see no reason to allow raw radio packets to be provided to the OS, for instance. We also shouldn't ignore the fact that sufficiently complicated firmware exposed to untrusted input (as is the case in most wifi scenarios) may contain exploitable vulnerabilities allowing attackers to gain arbitrary code execution on the wifi chipset - and potentially use that as a way to gain control of the host OS (see this writeup for an example). Vendors being in a unique position to update that firmware means users may never receive security updates, leaving them with a choice between discarding hardware that otherwise works perfectly or leaving themselves vulnerable to known security issues.

But even the cases where firmware does nothing other than initialise the hardware cause problems. A lot of hardware has functionality controlled by registers that can be locked during the boot process. Vendor firmware may choose to disable (or, rather, never to enable) functionality that may be beneficial to a user, and then lock out the ability to reconfigure the hardware later. Without any ability to modify that firmware, the user lacks the freedom to choose what functionality their hardware makes available to them. Again, the ability to inspect this firmware and modify it has a distinct benefit to the user.

So, from a practical perspective, I think there's a strong argument that users would benefit from most (if not all) firmware being free software, and I don't think that's an especially controversial argument. So I think this is less of a philosophical discussion, and more of a strategic one - is spending time focused on ensuring firmware is free worthwhile, and if so what's an appropriate way of achieving this?

I think there's two consistent ways to view this. One is to view free firmware as desirable but not necessary. This approach basically argues that code that's running on hardware that isn't the main CPU would benefit from being free, in the same way that code running on a remote network service would benefit from being free, but that this is much less important than ensuring that all the code running in the context of the OS on the primary CPU is free. The maximalist position is not to compromise at all - all software on a system, whether it's running at boot or during runtime, and whether it's running on the primary CPU or any other component on the board, should be free.

Personally, I lean towards the former and think there's a reasonably coherent argument here. I think users would benefit from the ability to modify the code running on hardware that their OS talks to, in the same way that I think users would benefit from the ability to modify the code running on hardware the other side of a network link that their browser talks to. I also think that there's enough that remains to be done in terms of what's running on the host CPU that it's not worth having that fight yet. But I think the latter is absolutely intellectually consistent, and while I don't agree with it from a pragmatic perspective I think things would undeniably be better if we lived in that world.

This feels like a thing you'd expect the Free Software Foundation to have opinions on, and it does! There are two primarily relevant things - the Respects your Freedoms campaign focused on ensuring that certified hardware meets certain requirements (including around firmware), and the Free System Distribution Guidelines, which define a baseline for an OS to be considered free by the FSF (including requirements around firmware).

RYF requires that all software on a piece of hardware be free other than under one specific set of circumstances. If software runs on (a) a secondary processor and (b) within which software installation is not intended after the user obtains the product, then the software does not need to be free. (b) effectively means that the firmware has to be in ROM, since any runtime interface that allows the firmware to be loaded or updated is intended to allow software installation after the user obtains the product.

The Free System Distribution Guidelines require that all non-free firmware be removed from the OS before it can be considered free. The recommended mechanism to achieve this is via linux-libre, a project that produces tooling to remove anything that looks plausibly like a non-free firmware blob from the Linux source code, along with any incitement to the user to load firmware - including even removing suggestions to update CPU microcode in order to mitigate CPU vulnerabilities.

For hardware that requires non-free firmware to be loaded at runtime in order to work, linux-libre doesn't do anything to work around this - the hardware will simply not work. In this respect, linux-libre reduces the amount of non-free firmware running on a system in the same way that removing the hardware would. This presumably encourages users to purchase RYF compliant hardware.

But does that actually improve things? RYF doesn't require that a piece of hardware have no non-free firmware, it simply requires that any non-free firmware be hidden from the user. CPU microcode is an instructive example here. At the time of writing, every laptop listed here has an Intel CPU. Every Intel CPU has microcode in ROM, typically an early revision that is known to have many bugs. The expectation is that this microcode is updated in the field by either the firmware or the OS at boot time - the updated version is loaded into RAM on the CPU, and vanishes if power is cut. The combination of RYF and linux-libre doesn't reduce the amount of non-free code running inside the CPU, it just means that the user (a) is more likely to hit since-fixed bugs (including security ones!), and (b) has less guidance on how to avoid them.

As long as RYF permits hardware that makes use of non-free firmware I think it hurts more than it helps. In many cases users aren't guided away from non-free firmware - instead it's hidden away from them, leaving them less aware that their freedom is constrained. Linux-libre goes further, refusing to even inform the user that the non-free firmware that their hardware depends on can be upgraded to improve their security.

Out of sight shouldn't mean out of mind. If non-free firmware is a threat to user freedom then allowing it to exist in ROM doesn't do anything to solve that problem. And if it isn't a threat to user freedom, then what's the point of requiring linux-libre for a Linux distribution to be considered free by the FSF? We seem to have ended up in the worst case scenario, where nothing is being done to actually replace any of the non-free firmware running on people's systems and where users may even end up with a reduced awareness that the non-free firmware even exists.

[1] Yes yes SMM

comments

12 Dec 2024 3:57pm GMT