On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 06:17:47PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 5/6/20 6:04 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:52:45PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> On 5/6/20 5:43 PM, Alex Kiernan wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:41 PM Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 5/6/20 4:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:33:37PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/6/20 4:27 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:17:35PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/6/20 3:48 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:17:19PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Am 2020-05-05 20:41, schrieb Simon Glass: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tom, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:50, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 06:39:58PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/20 6:37 PM, Alex Kiernan wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:28 PM Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/20 3:22 PM, Alex Kiernan wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:28 PM Tom Rini > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 05:40:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no reason to tail-pad fitImage with external data > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 4-bytes, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while fitImage without external data does not have any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such padding and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is often unaligned. DT spec also does not mandate any such > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> padding. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, the tail-pad fills the last few bytes with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uninitialized data, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which could lead to a potential information leak. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $ echo -n xy > /tmp/data ; \ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ./tools/mkimage -E -f auto -d /tmp/data > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /tmp/fitImage ; \ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hexdump -vC /tmp/fitImage | tail -n 3 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00000260 61 2d 6f 66 66 73 65 74 00 64 61 74 61 2d 73 69 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |a-offset.data-si| > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00000270 7a 65 00 00 78 79 64 64 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |ze..xydd| > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^^ ^^ ^^ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00000260 61 2d 6f 66 66 73 65 74 00 64 61 74 61 2d 73 69 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |a-offset.data-si| > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00000270 7a 65 00 78 79 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |ze.xy| > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Applied to u-boot/master, thanks! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This breaks booting on my board (am3352, eMMC boot, FIT > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u-boot, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONFIG_SPL_LOAD_FIT). Not got any useful diagnostics - if I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boot it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from eMMC I get nothing at all on the console, if I boot > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over ymodem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it stalls at 420k, before continuing to 460k. My guess is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's some > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error going to the console at the 420k mark, but obviously > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's lost > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the ymodem... I have two DTBs in the FIT image, 420k > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> align to the point between them. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My bet would be on some padding / unaligned access problem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch uncovered. Can you take a look ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems plausible. With this change my external data starts at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0x483 and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything after it is non-aligned: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Should the beginning of external data be aligned ? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If in U-Boot we revert e8c2d25845c72c7202a628a97d45e31beea40668 > >>>>>>>>>>>> does > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem go away? If so, that's not a fix outright, it means we > >>>>>>>>>>>> need > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> dig back in to the libfdt thread and find the "make this work > >>>>>>>>>>>> without > >>>>>>>>>>>> killing performance everywhere all the time" option. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If it is a device tree, it must be 32-bit aligned. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This commit actually breaks my board too (which I was just about > >>>>>>>>>> to send > >>>>>>>>>> upstream, but realized it was broken). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Said board uses SPL and main U-Boot. SPL runs fine and main u-boot > >>>>>>>>>> doesn't > >>>>>>>>>> output anything. The only difference which I found is that > >>>>>>>>>> fit-dtb.blob is > >>>>>>>>>> 2 bytes shorter. And the content is shifted by one byte although > >>>>>>>>>> data-offset is the same. Strange. In the non-working case, the > >>>>>>>>>> inner > >>>>>>>>>> FDT magic isn't 4 byte aligned. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You can find the two fit-dtb.blobs here: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://walle.cc/u-boot/fit-dtb.blob.working > >>>>>>>>>> https://walle.cc/u-boot/fit-dtb.blob.non-working > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Reverting e8c2d25845c72c7202a628a97d45e31beea40668 doesn't help (I > >>>>>>>>>> might > >>>>>>>>>> reverted it the wrong way, there is actually a conflict). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'll dig deeper into that tomorrow, but maybe you have some > >>>>>>>>>> pointers where > >>>>>>>>>> to look. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> For reference you can find the current patch here: > >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/mwalle/u-boot/tree/sl28-upstream > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think we have a few things to fix here. Marek's patch is breaking > >>>>>>>>> things and needs to be reverted. But it's showing a few underlying > >>>>>>>>> problems that need to be fixed too: > >>>>>>>>> - fit_extract_data() needs to use calloc() not malloc() so that we > >>>>>>>>> don't > >>>>>>>>> leak random data. > >>>>>>>>> - We need to 8-byte alignment on the external data. That's the > >>>>>>>>> requirement for Linux for device trees on both 32 and 64bit arm. > >>>>>>>>> Atish, does RISC-V require more than that? I don't see it in > >>>>>>>>> Linux's > >>>>>>>>> Documentation/riscv/boot-image-header.rst (and there's no > >>>>>>>>> booting.rst > >>>>>>>>> file like arm/arm64). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why 8-byte alignment ? The external data are copied into the target > >>>>>>>> location, so why do they need to be padded in any way? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The start of the external data needs the alignment, to be clearer. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Given that things which end up in external data have alignment > >>>>> requirements, we need to align and meet those requirements. And I noted > >>>>> why 8 above. > >>>> > >>>> If you end up with external data, then you need to move those blobs into > >>>> their target location anyway. That's what you specify in the load = <> > >>>> property in the .its . > >>>> > >>> > >>> Just reading common/spl/spl_fit.c, I think that'll try and parse in > >>> situ, rather than relocating it? > >> > >> And is that correct or is that the same problem as we have on arm64 with > >> fitImage and fdt_high=-1 ? I think it's the later. > > > > I'm not sure that it is. Can we easily/safely memmove the data to be > > aligned? Is that really a better option in this case than ensuring > > alignment within the file? > > Can't we use the new mkimage -B option to enforce the alignment IFF and > only IFF it is required ?
Perhaps. But.. > Then we can enforce it separately for 32bit > and 64bit platforms to 4 and 8 bytes respectively even. It's 8 bytes for both. It's possible that Linux doesn't hard fail if you only do 4 byte alignment but the documented requirement is 8, for arm32. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature