On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 04:05:55PM +0530, Anshul Dalal wrote: > On Sat Feb 22, 2025 at 1:34 AM IST, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 08:47:51PM +0530, Anshul Dalal wrote: > > > > > During kernel build process the header size is computed including the > > > BSS whereas it's removed when creating the uncompressed image. Therefore > > > the size of the uncompressed image on filesystem will be smaller than > > > the size specifiedin the header. > > > > > > Therefore it makes sense to return the header size back instead of the > > > file size in falcon boot. > > > > > > More info: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250214111656.2358748-1-ansh...@ti.com/ > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anshul Dalal <ansh...@ti.com> > > > --- > > > common/spl/spl_ext.c | 4 ++++ > > > common/spl/spl_fat.c | 3 +++ > > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/common/spl/spl_ext.c b/common/spl/spl_ext.c > > > index c5478820a9b..6d8d6544092 100644 > > > --- a/common/spl/spl_ext.c > > > +++ b/common/spl/spl_ext.c > > > @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@ static ulong spl_fit_read(struct spl_load_info *load, > > > ulong file_offset, > > > ret = ext4fs_read(buf, file_offset, size, &actlen); > > > if (ret) > > > return ret; > > > + > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_OS_BOOT) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTI)) > > > + return size; > > > + > > > return actlen; > > > } > > > > > > diff --git a/common/spl/spl_fat.c b/common/spl/spl_fat.c > > > index fce451b7664..ddf85e2cece 100644 > > > --- a/common/spl/spl_fat.c > > > +++ b/common/spl/spl_fat.c > > > @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ static ulong spl_fit_read(struct spl_load_info *load, > > > ulong file_offset, > > > if (ret) > > > return ret; > > > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_OS_BOOT) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTI)) > > > + return size; > > > + > > > return actread; > > > } > > > > Some image formats include information about the BSS as well, and others > > do not. But this is just having some parts of SPL return the filesize > > and not doing some deeper probing. Given that usually problems like this > > arise from loading contents in to memory too close together and then > > getting wiped out by the kernel BSS, what's the problem situation you've > > run in to, where, and with what loaded where in memory? > > The problem is not about the allocation of BSS section but when loading > an uncompressed kernel image with the check in _spl_load at > `include/spl_load.h:95` which fails to -EIO even when the image is loaded > properly because it compares the size form the header to the size of the > file read from the FS: > > return read < spl_image->size ? -EIO : 0; > > This doesn't work for uncompressed kernel image because the size from > the header (the parameter ulong size for spl_fit_read) includes BSS > which is not part of the final image file. And there is no way of > knowing the file size based on the header. Hence why we check for > CONFIG_CMD_BOOTI for returning the header size directly. > > Although it might be better to have a different function altogether for > reading uncompressed image that can be passed to spl_load_init so we are > not using spl_**fit**_read to read non fit images. > > You can find the bug report here: > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250214111656.2358748-1-ansh...@ti.com/
Thanks for explaining. You should include a fixes tag and explain a bit more about the problem being fixed in spl_load, thanks. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
