From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp4.nedap.com ([213.160.213.85]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1eKmH0-0001E8-Dw for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:26:40 +0000 From: Jaap de Jong Subject: Re: Mounting issue with old rootfs and new kernel To: Richard Weinberger , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" References: <6030766.nKoDj6T6s8@blindfold> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:26:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6030766.nKoDj6T6s8@blindfold> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 30-11-17 17:20, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Jaap, > > Am Donnerstag, 30. November 2017, 16:42:33 CET schrieb Jaap de Jong: >> Hi Richard, >> >> On 30-11-17 16:28, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> Jaap, >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Jaap de Jong > wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I'm hoping for some pointers. >>>> >>>> I have this a created with openembedded classic. >>>> >>>> It works just fine when running with an old kernel (2.6.35) >>>> >>>> Now with the same rootfs and a newer kernel (4.9.28) it damages the old >>>> rootfs in such a way that it becomes unusable. >>>> >>>> This is the error it shows: >>>> [ 1.523437] ubi0 error: >>>> ubi_read_volume_table: the layout volume was >>>> not found [ 1.531250] ubi0 error: >>>> ubi_attach_mtd_dev: failed to attach mtd3, >>>> error -22> >>> Are these really the only erros/warnings from UBI? >> >> Yes. Also ran it without 'quiet' as kernel parameter and that also does >> not show extra errors. > > Hm, but U-Boot comes first? Maybe it damaged the UBI image already. That is the same U-Boot as before which didn't damage the rootfs. Also U-boot is still able to mount and read files from it even after it has been damaged by the new kernel. So what do I have so far? 1) flash a unit with uboot, old kernel and old rootfs, boot it --> fine 2) flash a unit with uboot, new kernel and new rootfs, boot it --> fine 3) flash a unit with uboot, new kernel and old rootfs, boot it --> fine 4) as with 1) but afterwards boot it with new kernel --> rootfs damaged > >> If I boot u-boot and try to mount it there, some other errors are show >> although basically the same >> >> U-Boot> ubi part rootfs >> UBI: mtd1 is detached from ubi0 >> Creating 1 MTD partitions on "nand0": >> 0x000000100000-0x000020000000 : "mtd=3" >> UBI: attaching mtd1 to ubi0 >> UBI: physical eraseblock size: 131072 bytes (128 KiB) >> UBI: logical eraseblock size: 129024 bytes >> UBI: smallest flash I/O unit: 2048 >> UBI: sub-page size: 512 >> UBI: VID header offset: 512 (aligned 512) >> UBI: data offset: 2048 >> UBI: attached mtd1 to ubi0 >> UBI: MTD device name: "mtd=3" >> UBI: MTD device size: 511 MiB >> UBI: number of good PEBs: 4088 >> UBI: number of bad PEBs: 0 >> UBI: max. allowed volumes: 128 >> UBI: wear-leveling threshold: 4096 >> UBI: number of internal volumes: 1 >> UBI: number of user volumes: 1 >> UBI: available PEBs: 40 >> UBI: total number of reserved PEBs: 4048 >> UBI: number of PEBs reserved for bad PEB handling: 40 >> UBI: max/mean erase counter: 2/0 >> >> U-Boot> ubifsmount rootfs >> UBIFS error (pid 0): ubifs_read_node: bad node type (255 but expected 6) >> UBIFS error (pid 0): ubifs_read_node: bad node at LEB 0:0 >> Error reading superblock on volume 'ubi:rootfs'! >> >>>> [ 1.539062] UBI error: cannot attach mtd3 >>>> [ 1.546875] Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: >>>> Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0) [ >>>> 1.546875] Rebooting in 1 seconds..RomBOOT >>>> >>>> As far as I can see the kernel configuration seems to be ok. >>>> >>>> Any ideas? >>> >>> If the MTD layout had changed I'd expect more errors from UBI. >>> Is this NAND? >> >> Yes nandflash >> >>> Did you compare the MTD partition layout and number of bad blocks? >> >> Do you mean before and after? > > Yes. Something must be different. > Page size? Sub pages? Number or erase blocks, etc... Will come back on this, need some more time... > > Thanks, > //richard > >