From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 19:59:24 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V2] mkimage: fit: Do not tail-pad fitImage with external data In-Reply-To: <20200505175554.GX12564@bill-the-cat> References: <20200501154026.79169-1-marex@denx.de> <20200504112749.GE12564@bill-the-cat> <20200505175022.GW12564@bill-the-cat> <20200505175554.GX12564@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <2fafc257-b22c-9eda-2cd3-53eefcd09a0d@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 5/5/20 7:55 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:53:42PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 5/5/20 7:50 PM, Tom Rini 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 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/5/20 3:22 PM, Alex Kiernan wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:28 PM Tom Rini 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 >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass >>>>>>>>> Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt >>>>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >> >> Still, my question is, should the beginning of external data be aligned >> ? And if so, to what, 4 bytes like FDT entries OR 8 bytes to cater for >> arm64/rv64 ? > > Is "external data" the kernel in this case? If so, I swear Linux > mandates 8 byte alignment for arm32 as well. External data can be anything, and if it is supposed to be 8 bytes, we already failed at that since forever.