* [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field
@ 2013-07-16 8:14 Rommel Custodio
2013-07-16 8:33 ` Lukasz Majewski
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rommel Custodio @ 2013-07-16 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi All,
U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3]
Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write" command.
Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4 code.
I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian).
There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is used.
Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a correctly ext4
formatted MMC/SD card.
Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken?
-----
diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
index 58880b4..22d4377 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
@@ -1429,7 +1429,7 @@ static struct ext4_extent_header
*ext4fs_get_extent_block
while (1) {
index = (struct ext4_extent_idx *)(ext_block + 1);
- if (le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_magic) != EXT4_EXT_MAGIC)
+ if (le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_magic) != EXT4_EXT_MAGIC)
return 0;
if (ext_block->eh_depth == 0)
@@ -1437,14 +1437,14 @@ static struct ext4_extent_header
*ext4fs_get_extent_block
i = -1;
do {
i++;
- if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
+ if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
break;
} while (fileblock > le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_block));
if (--i < 0)
return 0;
- block = le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_hi);
+ block = le16_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_hi);
block = (block << 32) + le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_lo);
if (ext4fs_devread(block << log2_blksz, 0, fs->blksz, buf))
@@ -1543,17 +1543,17 @@ long int read_allocated_block(struct ext2_inode
*inode, int fileblock)
do {
i++;
- if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
+ if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
break;
} while (fileblock >= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_block));
if (--i >= 0) {
fileblock -= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_block);
- if (fileblock >= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_len)) {
+ if (fileblock >= le16_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_len)) {
free(buf);
return 0;
}
- start = le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_hi);
+ start = le16_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_hi);
start = (start << 32) +
le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_lo);
free(buf);
-----
(Sorry, I can't CC anyone directly as I'm using the gmane "post" interface)
All the best,
Rommel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field
2013-07-16 8:14 [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field Rommel Custodio
@ 2013-07-16 8:33 ` Lukasz Majewski
[not found] ` <20130716204531.GA548@CrG.local>
2013-07-19 7:03 ` Lukasz Majewski
2013-08-05 7:31 ` Pavel Machek
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Lukasz Majewski @ 2013-07-16 8:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi Rommel,
> Hi All,
>
> U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3]
>
> Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write"
> command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4
> code.
The ext4 code at u-boot (especially ext4write) needs special attention.
It is on top of my list to refactor and clean up this code base
(especially the ext4write command).
>
> I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian).
> There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is
> used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a
> correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card.
>
> Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken?
I would need to double check it (since I'm using only ext4load at my
target board currently).
>
> -----
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
> index 58880b4..22d4377 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
> @@ -1429,7 +1429,7 @@ static struct ext4_extent_header
> *ext4fs_get_extent_block
> while (1) {
> index = (struct ext4_extent_idx *)(ext_block + 1);
>
> - if (le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_magic) !=
> EXT4_EXT_MAGIC)
> + if (le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_magic) !=
> EXT4_EXT_MAGIC) return 0;
>
> if (ext_block->eh_depth == 0)
> @@ -1437,14 +1437,14 @@ static struct ext4_extent_header
> *ext4fs_get_extent_block
> i = -1;
> do {
> i++;
> - if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
> + if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
^^^^^ We had some problems with
unaligned access to 16 bit values
recently (when those start at 0x2).
It was observed on our ARM Exynos4
based target.
> break;
> } while (fileblock > le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_block));
>
> if (--i < 0)
> return 0;
>
> - block = le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_hi);
> + block = le16_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_hi);
> block = (block << 32) +
> le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_lo);
> if (ext4fs_devread(block << log2_blksz, 0,
> fs->blksz, buf)) @@ -1543,17 +1543,17 @@ long int
> read_allocated_block(struct ext2_inode *inode, int fileblock)
>
> do {
> i++;
> - if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
> + if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
> break;
> } while (fileblock >=
> le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_block)); if (--i >= 0) {
> fileblock -= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_block);
> - if (fileblock >=
> le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_len)) {
> + if (fileblock >=
> le16_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_len)) { free(buf);
> return 0;
> }
>
> - start = le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_hi);
> + start = le16_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_hi);
> start = (start << 32) +
> le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_lo);
> free(buf);
> -----
>
> (Sorry, I can't CC anyone directly as I'm using the gmane "post"
> interface)
You can also CC ext4 u-boot's implementation authors.
>
> All the best,
> Rommel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field
[not found] ` <20130716204531.GA548@CrG.local>
@ 2013-07-16 23:32 ` Rommel Custodio
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rommel Custodio @ 2013-07-16 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Sorry for the extra noise.
On Wednesday, July 17, 2013, Rommel G Custodio <sessyargc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Lukasz Majewski,
>
> On 2013.07/16, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> Hi Rommel,
>>
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3]
>> >
>> > Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write"
>> > command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4
>> > code.
>>
>> The ext4 code at u-boot (especially ext4write) needs special attention.
>>
>> It is on top of my list to refactor and clean up this code base
>> (especially the ext4write command).
>>
>
> I know the code is fairly recent and it seems limited testing (on a
> limited number of platforms) has only been performed.
>
>> >
>> > I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian).
>> > There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is
>> > used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a
>> > correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card.
>> >
>> > Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken?
>>
>> I would need to double check it (since I'm using only ext4load at my
>> target board currently).
>>
>
> Without the patches below ext4load/ext2load doesn't work correctly on the
> ml507.
>
> For testing, the default settings are used enabled). The SD card mounts
> correctly using ext4 in Linux but I get this error in u-boot:
> ml507:/# ext4ls mmc 0:1
> <DIR> 4096 .
> <DIR> 4096 ..
> <DIR> 16384 lost+found
> 9294153 mybit.ace
> ml507:/# ext2ls mmc 0:1
> <DIR> 4096 .
> <DIR> 4096 ..
> <DIR> 16384 lost+found
> 9294153 mybit.ace
> ml507:/# ext4load mmc 0:1 1000000 /mybit.ace
> invalid extent block
> ml507:/# ext2load mmc 0:1 1000000 mybit.ace
> invalid extent block
>
>> > do {
>> > i++;
>> > - if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
>> > + if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
>> ^^^^^ We had some problems with
>> unaligned access to 16 bit values
>> recently (when those start at 0x2).
>> It was observed on our ARM Exynos4
>> based target.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > (Sorry, I can't CC anyone directly as I'm using the gmane "post"
>> > interface)
>>
>> You can also CC ext4 u-boot's implementation authors.
Forgot to Cc the list
And the original author's email seem to be bouncing.
>>
>> >
>> > All the best,
>> > Rommel
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > U-Boot mailing list
>> > U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>> > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Lukasz Majewski
>>
>> Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field
2013-07-16 8:14 [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field Rommel Custodio
2013-07-16 8:33 ` Lukasz Majewski
@ 2013-07-19 7:03 ` Lukasz Majewski
2013-07-20 8:03 ` [PATCH, RESEND] " Rommel G Custodio
2013-07-21 4:32 ` [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] " Simon Glass
2013-08-05 7:31 ` Pavel Machek
2 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Lukasz Majewski @ 2013-07-19 7:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Rommel Custodio
sessyargc+uboot at gmail.com wrote,
Hi Rommel,
> Hi All,
>
> U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3]
>
> Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write"
> command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4
> code.
>
> I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian).
> There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is
> used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a
> correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card.
>
> Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken?
What kind of mailer program have you used to sent this e-mail?
I receive following errors:
fatal: corrupt patch at line 111
I cannot apply this patch with either git am -3 or git apply.
Were you using git send-email?
--
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH, RESEND] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field
2013-07-19 7:03 ` Lukasz Majewski
@ 2013-07-20 8:03 ` Rommel G Custodio
2013-07-21 4:32 ` [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] " Simon Glass
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Rommel G Custodio @ 2013-07-20 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Dear Lukasz Majewski
On 2013.07/19, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> fatal: corrupt patch at line 111
>
> I cannot apply this patch with either git am -3 or git apply.
I'm resending the patch.
>> (Sorry, I can't CC anyone directly as I'm using the gmane "post"
>> interface)
All the best,
Rommel
Signed-off-by: Rommel G Custodio <sessyargc.jp@gmail.com>
---
fs/ext4/ext4_common.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
index 2776293..ff9c4ec 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
@@ -1432,7 +1432,7 @@ static struct ext4_extent_header *ext4fs_get_extent_block
while (1) {
index = (struct ext4_extent_idx *)(ext_block + 1);
- if (le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_magic) != EXT4_EXT_MAGIC)
+ if (le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_magic) != EXT4_EXT_MAGIC)
return 0;
if (ext_block->eh_depth == 0)
@@ -1440,14 +1440,14 @@ static struct ext4_extent_header *ext4fs_get_extent_block
i = -1;
do {
i++;
- if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
+ if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
break;
} while (fileblock > le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_block));
if (--i < 0)
return 0;
- block = le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_hi);
+ block = le16_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_hi);
block = (block << 32) + le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_lo);
if (ext4fs_devread((lbaint_t)block << log2_blksz, 0, fs->blksz,
@@ -1548,17 +1548,17 @@ long int read_allocated_block(struct ext2_inode *inode, int fileblock)
do {
i++;
- if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
+ if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries))
break;
} while (fileblock >= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_block));
if (--i >= 0) {
fileblock -= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_block);
- if (fileblock >= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_len)) {
+ if (fileblock >= le16_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_len)) {
free(buf);
return 0;
}
- start = le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_hi);
+ start = le16_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_hi);
start = (start << 32) +
le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_lo);
free(buf);
--
1.8.3.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field
2013-07-19 7:03 ` Lukasz Majewski
2013-07-20 8:03 ` [PATCH, RESEND] " Rommel G Custodio
@ 2013-07-21 4:32 ` Simon Glass
2013-07-21 8:24 ` Andreas Bießmann
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2013-07-21 4:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
+Tom
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Rommel Custodio
> sessyargc+uboot at gmail.com wrote,
>
> Hi Rommel,
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3]
> >
> > Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write"
> > command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4
> > code.
> >
> > I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian).
> > There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is
> > used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a
> > correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card.
> >
> > Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken?
>
> What kind of mailer program have you used to sent this e-mail?
> I receive following errors:
>
> fatal: corrupt patch at line 111
>
> I cannot apply this patch with either git am -3 or git apply.
>
> Were you using git send-email?
>
It seems like we should try to fix this before the release?
Regards,
Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field
2013-07-21 4:32 ` [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] " Simon Glass
@ 2013-07-21 8:24 ` Andreas Bießmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Bießmann @ 2013-07-21 8:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi all,
On 21.07.2013 06:32, Simon Glass wrote:
> +Tom
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Rommel Custodio
>> sessyargc+uboot at gmail.com wrote,
>>
>> Hi Rommel,
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3]
>>>
>>> Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write"
>>> command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4
>>> code.
>>>
>>> I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian).
>>> There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is
>>> used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a
>>> correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card.
>>>
>>> Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken?
>>
>> What kind of mailer program have you used to sent this e-mail?
>> I receive following errors:
>>
>> fatal: corrupt patch at line 111
>>
>> I cannot apply this patch with either git am -3 or git apply.
>>
>> Were you using git send-email?
>>
>
> It seems like we should try to fix this before the release?
+1
I can confirm that reading ext4 extended header on BE machine (avr32) is
broken. I'm currently on it to get it working by using Rommel's patch.
Regards
Andreas Bie?mann
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field
2013-07-16 8:14 [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field Rommel Custodio
2013-07-16 8:33 ` Lukasz Majewski
2013-07-19 7:03 ` Lukasz Majewski
@ 2013-08-05 7:31 ` Pavel Machek
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2013-08-05 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi!
> U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3]
>
> Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write" command.
> Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4 code.
>
> I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian).
> There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is used.
> Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a correctly ext4
> formatted MMC/SD card.
>
> Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken?
This fixed ext4 on powerpc-based board. Thanks!
Tested-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-08-05 7:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-07-16 8:14 [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] ext4fs: le32_to_cpu() used on a 16-bit field Rommel Custodio
2013-07-16 8:33 ` Lukasz Majewski
[not found] ` <20130716204531.GA548@CrG.local>
2013-07-16 23:32 ` Rommel Custodio
2013-07-19 7:03 ` Lukasz Majewski
2013-07-20 8:03 ` [PATCH, RESEND] " Rommel G Custodio
2013-07-21 4:32 ` [U-Boot] [U-Boot, RFC] " Simon Glass
2013-07-21 8:24 ` Andreas Bießmann
2013-08-05 7:31 ` Pavel Machek
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox