[PATCH dtc take 2] Fix reserve map output for asm format.

Milton Miller miltonm at bga.com
Mon Apr 16 15:08:37 EST 2007

On Apr 15, 2007, at 11:16 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:49:57PM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 2007, at 7:51 PM, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:24:06PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
>>>> Milton Miller wrote:
>>>>> Sometime around Sun Apr 15 12:29:14 EST 2007, Jerry Van Baren 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Add extra reserve map slots output for asm format (previously done
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> dtb
>>>>>>   output).

>>>>>> and handle dtb (binary)
>>>>>>   input being shorter than the total blob length (result of 
>>>>>> putting
>>>>>>   extra space in the blob).
>> That part is still in this patch.
>> And I think it should be a separate patch.  Its unrelated to filling
>> in .long 0 for the memory reserve map.
> Yes.

>> That said, one could use .space there I suppose.  Its fine the way it
>> is.
> I think .space would be the preferred method for adding the padding
> space at the end in asm format.

For the space at the end, I agree.  Or use .org 99b+size with 99: at the
begining of the struct.   The .long 0 was more for memory reserve, where
the entries might be replaced before assembly.

>>>>> The total_size says how much data should be copied.  Anything
>>>>> less and there is data missing.   Assuming zeros is wrong for
>>>>> most sections (the exception being the memory reserve list
>>>>> that had a terminating 0 entry within the read portion).
>>>>> milton
>>>> The reason total_size is bigger than the actual size is because I
>>>> created the blob with extra space using the -S parameter.  It is
>>>> intentionally bigger.  The extra space is ignored by dtc when
>>>> creating a
>>>> dts/asm format output which is why cmalloc() is unnecessary.
>> If this is a case of reading in the files it creates, then its wrong
>> to have the size created less than total_size.  The space needs to be
>> in the output file.  To have it not be in the output is wrong. For
>> instance it will not be allocated by objcopy nor the linker when its
>> inserted into the dtb section of the zImage wrapper, which would lead 
>> to
>> scribbling on memory belonging to something else, or at least
>> unallocated.
>> Similar for a firmware that treats the dt_struct as binary data.  It
>> might be loaded just before the initrd for instance.
> Well, I can see specialized case uses for totalsize greater than
> stored size: where you know the blob is going to be copied into
> another staging area with more space, for example.

That can either be done with your embedding script processing and 
the zeros at the end or by a special option I guess.

>>>> I suppose we could require a -f force but I'm not wild about 
>>>> creating
>>>> a
>>>> nanny program.  There is nothing wrong with the blob - it parses 
>>>> just
>>>> fine.  If there were problems with the blob contents, other errors
>>>> would
>>>> be raised.

You mean like not creating output for -I fs -O dts when there are
expected properties (files) missing?  :-)  The kernel booted just
fine, it was processing /proc/device-tree after all.

Its probably wrong to check for expected properties when the output
is dts.  At least the checks should not be more than a warning (that
you may have selected a subtree).

>>> I think the warning is fine, but not for exactly the reasons you
>>> state.  Several points:
>>> - At least with v17 input, where it's possible, we probably *should*
>>> check that an input blob isn't truncated in the middle of the strings
>>> or structure sections.  That should be more than a warning.
>> Or check that (1) the memory reserve list is terminated before this
>> point, (2) the dt_struct has matching node begin and end count and
>> ends with tree end, and (3) all strings referenced by dt_struct are
>> before the read size.
> I think just checking the header lengths of the sub-blocks should be
> sufficient at this point.  Checking that the begin/end count matches
> in the structure block and that all the string references are valid
> can, I think, be correctly delayed until we actually parse the
> structure block.

Checking the sublock lengths is sufficient, but actually more
restrictive that what I said.   And mine works on older formats
without the size fields.  But yes, yours is simpler when the fields

Or just leave it an error, fix the output, and make the user fix the
input.   If you took off the zeros, you can add padding from /dev/zero
or /dev/random or /etc/motd, as you said the data should not be used.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list