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

[Marek Vasut]

On 5/8/20 9:21 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:00:02PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 5/8/20 8:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:37:01AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/20 10:46 PM, Samuel Holland wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/20 12:02 PM, trini at konsulko.com (Tom Rini) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that it is.  Can we easily/safely memmove the data to be
>>>>>>>>>> aligned?  Is that really a better option in this case than ensuring
>>>>>>>>>> alignment within the file?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can't we use the new mkimage -B option to enforce the alignment IFF and
>>>>>>>>> only IFF it is required ? 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps.  But..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then we can enforce it separately for 32bit
>>>>>>>>> and 64bit platforms to 4 and 8 bytes respectively even.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's 8 bytes for both.  It's possible that Linux doesn't hard fail if
>>>>>>>> you only do 4 byte alignment but the documented requirement is 8, for
>>>>>>>> arm32.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With Linux you usually need to move the kernel anyway, no ? It's 2 MiB
>>>>>>> for arm64 for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For arm64 you have to move it to where text_offset says it needs to be.
>>>>>> For arm32 the common (always, practically?) case is you're firing off
>>>>>> the zImage which does what's needed.  But..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what you usually parse in-place would be the DT then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the practical case is that it's a DT and that needs 8 byte
>>>>>> alignment.  And we should just get back to aligning that correctly.
>>>>>> Going back to the v1 thread, it turns out the answer to "why do we even
>>>>>> have this padding?" is "we need the DT to be aligned".
>>>>>
>>>>> This change broke SPL booting for me on MACH_SUN50I as well. One thing that I
>>>>> haven't seen brought up yet is that SPL FIT code assumes exactly a 4-byte
>>>>> alignment of external data after the FIT. In spl_load_simple_fit():
>>>>>
>>>>>  /*
>>>>>   * For FIT with external data, figure out where the external images
>>>>>   * start. This is the base for the data-offset properties in each
>>>>>   * image.
>>>>>   */
>>>>>  size = fdt_totalsize(fit);
>>>>>  size = (size + 3) & ~3;
>>>>>  size = board_spl_fit_size_align(size);
>>>>>  base_offset = (size + 3) & ~3;
>>>>
>>>> Somehow this doesn't match the 8-byte alignment Tom was suggesting.
>>>> And that only leads me to believe that we can either make assumptions
>>>> about alignment, which would very likely fail one way or the other OR we
>>>> can say that for SPL as a special case, we enforce some alignment.
>>>
>>> It's likely the case that on arm32 as there's no natural alignment
>>> problem, even tho the kernel says 8 byte, 4 byte doesn't lead to failure
>>> and is rarely if ever given 4-but-not-8-byte-aligned addresses of the
>>> DTB.  Which is why we should probably move the alignment here to 8 bytes
>>> instead of 4.
>>>
>>>> But that in turn fails for fitImage with embedded data, where the
>>>> embedded data are always aligned to 4 bytes, because that's how DTC
>>>> aligns properties.
>>>
>>> I think the answer is that the use-case you're talking about is simply
>>> going to require data to be relocated.
>>
>> I have a feeling that no matter how much you try to pad when generating
>> fitImage from U-Boot, there will always be a case where that will fail.
>> I listed at least two:
>> - fitImage with embedded data, 4byte alignment due to DTC
>> - Older fitImages, 4byte alignment, fails on arm64
>> - Someone can generate signed fitImage with older mkimage => fail
>>
>> So that relocation logic or at least warning or something should be in
>> there, no matter what.
> 
> There's two distinct areas here, and they keep being conflated.
> 
> The case of SPL and a FIT image for U-Boot+DTB.  We've always aligned
> this to 4 bytes and it's worked.  I think if someone looked at the ARM
> ARM for aarch64 you could reason out that "4-but-not-8-byte aligned
> pointers are slow but work" as why this wasn't a hard fail on aarch64.

But we had hard-fault on arm64, see
[PATCH] lib: rsa: Fix unaligned 64-bit fdt accesses

> We should adjust our current alignment up to cover that and move on.

Adjust it to what, 8 bytes ? Or 16 in case RV128 happens ? Or what ?
You will fail here either way, since if you build the fitImage with
embedded data, the embedded data will be aligned to 4 bytes, because DT
properties are aligned to 4 bytes.

> The case of FIT images and "kernel_noload" / fdt_high=-1 /
> initrd_high=-1 and aarch64.  If you load a FIT image in to memory and
> try and use it as-is, it will not work.  It's not even possible in the
> general case as you would have to inspect the kernel, see what the
> text_offset is and build a FIT image that took that in to account, to
> not have to move the Image around.  The device tree will almost
> certainly be misaligned and still need to be relocated.  This is why a
> while back I sent out an email asking every maintainer of a board that
> disabled device tree relocation to stop that.  Perhaps a run-time patch
> to scream about this rather than note it as we do today would help (see
> common/image-fdt.c::boot_relocate_fdt()).

I have a feeling we should do the relocation either way. And if there is
some special limited case (like the SPL), we should warn about it and
push mkimage with e.g. -B 8 flag to enforce the alignment.