Hi Bin,
this patch reminds me of one I sent some time ago:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/873666/
I forgot about it, so didn't follow up on the comments, but iirc this
fixed a 'Bad CBFS file' error for me too. Does that work for you?
Regards,
Andre
On 22/12/2018 10:58, Bin Meng wrote:
Hi Christian,
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 4:57 PM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Christian,
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 4:18 PM Christian Gmeiner
<christian.gmei...@gmail.com> wrote:
Am Mi., 12. Dez. 2018 um 15:27 Uhr schrieb Christian Gmeiner
<christian.gmei...@gmail.com>:
Hi Bin,
Finally I have some time to look deeper into this issue.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:47 PM Christian Gmeiner
<christian.gmei...@gmail.com> wrote:
Coreboot does not contain such a check:
https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/blob/eeb4e20b2f6d786c92fe3efb30817e90389a2bfe/src/commonlib/cbfs.c#L64
Before this change cbfsinit failed with 'Bad CBFS file'. After this change all
cbfs commands
are working as expected.
Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmei...@gmail.com>
---
fs/cbfs/cbfs.c | 6 +-----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/cbfs/cbfs.c b/fs/cbfs/cbfs.c
index 0dce639b49..2a581f0c18 100644
--- a/fs/cbfs/cbfs.c
+++ b/fs/cbfs/cbfs.c
@@ -96,11 +96,7 @@ static int file_cbfs_next_file(u8 *start, u32 size, u32
align,
}
swap_file_header(&header, fileHeader);
- if (header.offset < sizeof(struct cbfs_fileheader) ||
- header.offset > header.len) {
- file_cbfs_result = CBFS_BAD_FILE;
- return -1;
- }
It looks to me the existing codes were doing some sanity checks. Can
you elaborate why this is failing on your board? In your coreboot
reference, I don't see exactly how U-Boot codes are connected to the
coreboot one.
This has nothing to do with my board at all - I can easily reproduce
this issue under qemu:
[snip]
What is needed to get further with this patch?
ping
Sorry, I meant to take some time to have a look at this. Will do this week.
I have looked at this patch. It looks we just need remove the
"header.offset > header.len" check. The other check is still valid.
During the investigation, I've noticed some other issues in the cbfs
codes. I've included your patch in my series [1]. Please have a look.
[1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=83355
Regards,
Bin
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
