[PATCH V2] mkimage: fit: Do not tail-pad fitImage with external data

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

On 5/6/20 4:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:33:37PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 5/6/20 4:27 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:17:35PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/20 3:48 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:17:19PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 2020-05-05 20:41, schrieb Simon Glass:
>>>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:50, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> 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 <marex@denx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/20 3:22 PM, Alex Kiernan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:28 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> 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 <marex@denx.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is a device tree, it must be 32-bit aligned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This commit actually breaks my board too (which I was just about to send
>>>>>> upstream, but realized it was broken).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Said board uses SPL and main U-Boot. SPL runs fine and main u-boot doesn't
>>>>>> output anything. The only difference which I found is that fit-dtb.blob is
>>>>>> 2 bytes shorter. And the content is shifted by one byte although
>>>>>> data-offset is the same. Strange. In the non-working case, the inner
>>>>>> FDT magic isn't 4 byte aligned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can find the two fit-dtb.blobs here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://walle.cc/u-boot/fit-dtb.blob.working
>>>>>> https://walle.cc/u-boot/fit-dtb.blob.non-working
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reverting e8c2d25845c72c7202a628a97d45e31beea40668 doesn't help (I might
>>>>>> reverted it the wrong way, there is actually a conflict).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll dig deeper into that tomorrow, but maybe you have some pointers where
>>>>>> to look.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For reference you can find the current patch here:
>>>>>> https://github.com/mwalle/u-boot/tree/sl28-upstream
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we have a few things to fix here.  Marek's patch is breaking
>>>>> things and needs to be reverted.  But it's showing a few underlying
>>>>> problems that need to be fixed too:
>>>>> - fit_extract_data() needs to use calloc() not malloc() so that we don't
>>>>>   leak random data.
>>>>> - We need to 8-byte alignment on the external data.  That's the
>>>>>   requirement for Linux for device trees on both 32 and 64bit arm.
>>>>>   Atish, does RISC-V require more than that?  I don't see it in Linux's
>>>>>   Documentation/riscv/boot-image-header.rst (and there's no booting.rst
>>>>>   file like arm/arm64).
>>>>
>>>> Why 8-byte alignment ? The external data are copied into the target
>>>> location, so why do they need to be padded in any way?
>>>
>>> The start of the external data needs the alignment, to be clearer.
>>
>> Why ?
> 
> Given that things which end up in external data have alignment
> requirements, we need to align and meet those requirements.  And I noted
> why 8 above.

If you end up with external data, then you need to move those blobs into
their target location anyway. That's what you specify in the load = <>
property in the .its .

>>>> If the external data are used in place, then it's the same problem as
>>>> arm64 fitImage with fdt_high=-1, which fails because the DT is aligned
>>>> to 4 bytes and arm64 expects it at 8byte offset.
>>>
>>> Except we're talking about cases where we can't relocate the data or it
>>> doesn't make any sense to.
>>
>> Which cases? This really needs to be spelled out.
>>
>>> That said, if you think the answer is that we need to ensure that when
>>> we use external data we first align it, please show us how that looks.
>>
>> I would like to understand the problem space first.
> 
> Then please re-read this thread and come up with an alternative solution
> to the problem you're trying to solve, thanks!

Thank you for the detailed explanation.