пн, 7 квіт. 2025 р. о 18:19 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> пише: > > 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
Reverting this commit alone b1340802 "boot: pxe: Use bootm_...() functions where possible" fixes my boot issue, it may not be a culprit but it definitely triggers fail. If you need any additional info from my side, just ask.
