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 ? Then we can enforce it separately for 32bit and 64bit platforms to 4 and 8 bytes respectively even.
