Hi Svyatoslav, On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 08:43, Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 07.04.25 4:53 пп, Tom Rini: > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 01:07:34PM +1200, Simon Glass wrote: > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 10:48, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 09:12:32AM +1200, Simon Glass wrote: > >>>> Hi Tom, > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 at 11:23, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, Apr 06, 2025 at 08:46:31AM +1200, Simon Glass wrote: > >>>>>> (question for Heinrich below) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Tom, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 at 02:48, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 08:40:08AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 04:48:01PM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 11:32:12PM +0200, Jonas Karlman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Simon, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-04 00:30, Simon Glass wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jonas, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 at 09:57, Jonas Karlman <jo...@kwiboo.se> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tom and Simon, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-19 00:21, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2025 17:24:54 -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This series includes some patches related to allowing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read_all() to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> used with the extlinux / PXE bootmeths. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> These patches were split out from the stb4 series, since it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will need to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have additional patches for LWIP, to avoid breaking PXE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> booting when > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LWIP is used. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Applied to u-boot/next, thanks! > >>>>>>>>>>>> This series broke booting a compressed arm64 defconfig Linux > >>>>>>>>>>>> kernel > >>>>>>>>>>>> (without module loading) due to changes in decompression buffer > >>>>>>>>>>>> length. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> My arm64 defconfig kernel (Image.gz) is ~24 MiB compressed and > >>>>>>>>>>>> ~85 MiB > >>>>>>>>>>>> uncompressed. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Before this series the decompression buffer was 10x the > >>>>>>>>>>>> kernel_comp_size > >>>>>>>>>>>> and now it is instead limited by the SYS_BOOTM_LEN Kconfig > >>>>>>>>>>>> symbol. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> A broken boot using current next branch: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Retrieving file: /Image.gz > >>>>>>>>>>>> Retrieving file: /initramfs.cpio.gz > >>>>>>>>>>>> append: earlycon > >>>>>>>>>>>> cmd 'booti' states 1f1f addr_img '0x02080000' conf_ramdisk > >>>>>>>>>>>> '0x06000000:394d3c' conf_fdt '3df16350' images 000000003ffe53a0 > >>>>>>>>>>>> kernel data at 0x02080000, len = 0x00000000 (0) > >>>>>>>>>>>> load 2080000 start 2080000 len 0 ep 0 os 5 comp 1 > >>>>>>>>>>>> find_other type 2 os 5 > >>>>>>>>>>>> ## Flattened Device Tree blob at 3df16350 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Booting using the fdt blob at 0x3df16350 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Working FDT set to 3df16350 > >>>>>>>>>>>> load_os load 8000000 image_start 2080000 image_len 2000000 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Uncompressing Kernel Image to 8000000 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Error: inflate() returned -5 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Image too large: increase CONFIG_SYS_BOOTM_LEN > >>>>>>>>>>>> Must RESET board to recover > >>>>>>>>>>>> Resetting the board... > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Changing SYS_BOOTM_LEN from default 64 MiB to 128 MiB fixed the > >>>>>>>>>>>> boot: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Retrieving file: /Image.gz > >>>>>>>>>>>> Retrieving file: /initramfs.cpio.gz > >>>>>>>>>>>> append: earlycon > >>>>>>>>>>>> cmd 'booti' states 1f1f addr_img '0x02080000' conf_ramdisk > >>>>>>>>>>>> '0x06000000:394d3c' conf_fdt '3df16430' images 000000003ffe5480 > >>>>>>>>>>>> kernel data at 0x02080000, len = 0x00000000 (0) > >>>>>>>>>>>> load 2080000 start 2080000 len 0 ep 0 os 5 comp 1 > >>>>>>>>>>>> find_other type 2 os 5 > >>>>>>>>>>>> ## Flattened Device Tree blob at 3df16430 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Booting using the fdt blob at 0x3df16430 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Working FDT set to 3df16430 > >>>>>>>>>>>> load_os load 8000000 image_start 2080000 image_len 2000000 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Uncompressing Kernel Image to 8000000 > >>>>>>>>>>>> kernel loaded at 0x08000000, end = 0x0d3b5a00 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Loading Ramdisk to 3cb51000, end 3cee5d3c ... OK > >>>>>>>>>>>> Loading Device Tree to 000000003cb3f000, end > >>>>>>>>>>>> 000000003cb509df ... OK > >>>>>>>>>>>> Working FDT set to 3cb3f000 > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Starting kernel ... > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Do we need to increase the default SYS_BOOTM_LEN for ARM64 now? > >>>>>>>>>>> Are you using the 'booti' command? Can you post a bit more console > >>>>>>>>>>> output or a script here as it isn't clear what boot command you > >>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>> using? For now I'm going to assume booti > >>>>>>>>>> Above was using an extlinux.conf with bootstd, not using the booti > >>>>>>>>>> cmd. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Use of booti cmd is not affected as it continue to use a 10x > >>>>>>>>>> multiple > >>>>>>>>>> of the kernel_comp_size env var for buffer size. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The change this series introduced was instead of the 10x multiple > >>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> kernel_comp_size now use SYS_BOOTM_LEN for buffer size (320 vs 32 > >>>>>>>>>> MiB). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> And because cmd/booti.c was not converted there is now two > >>>>>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>>>> handling of this decompression buffer size. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If the change to now use SYS_BOOTM_LEN was intended this need to be > >>>>>>>>>> changed as it has mostly been irrelevant for booting Linux on > >>>>>>>>>> AArch64 > >>>>>>>>>> boards prior to this series. > >>>>>>>>> We need to clean things up such that the path which is using 10x > >>>>>>>>> multiple (and we lmb_alloc an area iirc) is used in all cases. > >>>>>>>> Looking at the code this morning, I was confusing this with what we > >>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>> for compressed FIT images, oops. > >>>>>>> Ugh. Simon, can you go and fix this whole problem? Both do_bootz and > >>>>>>> do_booti have non-trivial amounts of code that's missed by changing > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>>> calling do_bootX() to bootX_run(). > >>>>>> For do_bootz() I believe the current code is correct. It does call > >>>>>> bootz_start() and then doesn't call it again when bootz_run() starts. > >>>>>> It looks like you have taken my Ubuntu test so perhaps I can add a > >>>>>> bootz test for another board in my lab. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For do_booti(), the code in booti_start() is used for the > >>>>>> non-compressed case, so I believe it is still needed and that bootm > >>>>>> doesn't currently honour 'Image' relocation when using an uncompressed > >>>>>> image. But then there is the issue of SYS_BOOTM_LEN, below. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> bootm_load_os() has code for ARM at the end, which I suspect needs to > >>>>>> run on RISC-V too, in case the image needs to be relocated. Marek > >>>>>> added this 7 years ago[1] so it predates RISC-V and Heinrich perhaps > >>>>>> didn't notice it when adding his support , if it is actually needed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> SYS_BOOTM_LEN is a 'last bastion' security feature to avoid people > >>>>>> loading images that wrap around memory, etc. I could put bootm_len > >>>>>> into struct bootm_info so that a 10x value can be used for the booti > >>>>>> case. > >>> I'm not sure any of the above is 100% correct. My very quick look was > >>> that it seems like if we want to have the command part of bootX be able > >>> to be equivalently called via API, more of most of the commands needs to > >>> be moved out of cmd/cmdX.c and to boot/bootX.c and put in to some state. > >> Yes, my intent has been to move code out of commands into boot/ and > >> have things work as before. > > Then none of this should be in a "pxe" series, and you should have > > been removing a bunch more code out of the command part of the file. > > > >> Also don't forget that booting a FIT with a compressed boot kernel did > >> not work before my series. The series was largely written to fix bugs > >> (in one place) rather that just to refactor for the fun it. > > I'm not sure which FIT use case you're talking about here exactly and > > when it got broken (because if it was in use already, someone would have > > reported it). > > > >>>>>> Tom, we also have the issue that you haven't taken the rest of the PXE > >>>>>> series (due to the lwip case), so our trees are out of sync in this > >>>>>> area. It would really help if you could take that series, and again, I > >>>>>> am happy to do the lwip case once it is landed. > >>> Your further PXE rework is irrelevant to this discussion. Except in that > >>> it points out there's still further changes that could break other > >>> things even more. > >> Yes, any change in untested code has the potential to create bugs. I > >> do the best I can, but I could use a little more support in this > >> effort. > > And the best way to get support for that is to slow down and make > > smaller more easily testable series. There's yet another bug in this > > series too that Svyatoslav has or will post about shortly. > > > >>>>>> So for now, if people agree, I can do a small series to use a > >>>>>> different SYS_BOOTM_LEN for the booti command and perhaps add RISC-V > >>>>>> as above. > >>> Well, no, that sounds like a step in the wrong direction. I'd like to > >>> instead restore the expected behavior, and then perhaps we could clean > >>> it up such that the compressed case for booti-Images works like FIT > >>> images where we lmb allocate a larger area if needed. > >> Yes, restoring the 10x decompression size is what I am talking about > >> here. Is there anything else? > > Functional wise, the being reported now issue Svyatoslav found too. > > > > Implementation wise, yes, I don't want to refactor and re-wrtie a bunch > > of this as the first step. The first step should be just what's needed > > to move the working functionality out of cmd/bootX.c and in to > > boot/bootX.c and let people verify things haven't regressed. Then some > > rework can be reviewed on its own. > > > >>>>>> Later, I could continue the boot-unification effort, e.g. delete the > >>>>>> booti_start() function. and incorporate the uncompressed case into > >>>>>> bootm code. > >>>>> I'm not sure your reading of the situation is right. I'm more inclined > >>>>> to revert this merge rather than take on more rework in the area. > >>>> Well that would be a pretty poor show. No one else has spent effort > >>>> trying to clean up and rationalise this code in the last 10 years, so > >>>> far as I can see. This is in -next so there is plenty of time to > >>>> resolve any issues. > >>> Yes, things haven't broken in 10 years. This is why I don't value "tidy > >>> up and refactor" in and of itself. Massive reworks then require a long > >>> time to check all of the corner cases. This has been true of many of the > >>> massive reworks you've done over the years. > >> Well, do you want to be able to boot without CMDLINE, or not? > > It's an interesting long term goal. But since there's always some > > distribution or another that ships with each release we do, not having > > functional regressions is more important than speed of new features. > > Being able to practically disable the command line has been a feature > > for forever. Being able to literally has implications for both security > > and end user rights that need to be considered too. > > > >>>> I believe my reading of the situation is right, but if you disagree > >>>> with some of it, please indicate which. > >>> Your answer is not "Oh, I'll go understand what I broke and restore > >>> expected behavior". It's "you should take more of my big rework and I'll > >>> rework this area even more". That is not convincing that we won't have > >>> v2025.07 broken here. > >> You only took half of the series, remember. We are talking about a > >> tiny corner case here, with no test coverage. I'm offering to fix the > >> case that has been reported. I can also even add a test for it. > > It wasn't half of the series. I didn't take more because it was either > > the stuff that broke other functionality or because it wasn't used until > > some further series from you. It's not a tiny corner case. A test case > > is nice, sure, but we'll never have 100% test coverage and need physical > > testing too. Which most people only have time for around releases. Which > > is why we need to go slow. Which again is why you need to split up your > > changes more and expect them to go slower. So there's time to test > > things. > Hello there! I have recently faced an issue with booting Linux on my > LG P895 (Tegra30 smartphone). It has installed PostmarketOS with extlinux > bootmethod and boots perfectly fine with current master but fails with next. > > Here is fragment of the boot log > > Retrieving file: /Image > Retrieving file: /initramfs > append: rw gpt > Retrieving file: /tegra30-lg-p895.dtb > ERROR: booting os 'Invalid OS' (0) is not supported > Boot failed (err=-14) > > I have debugged a bit and so far reverting: > > e2e87b84 "boot: pxe: Refactor label_run_boot() to avoid cmdline" > feb8d7fd "pxe_utils: Simplify default fdt in label_run_boot()" > b1340802 "boot: pxe: Use bootm_...() functions where possible" > > Fixed booting for my device.
Thanks for the report and debugging. I'll take a look. I suspect the global 'images' is somehow not being updated. Regards, Simon
