[PATCH v13 15/24] cli: add modern hush as parser for run_command*()

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 9:23 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 10:10:42PM +0100, Francis Laniel wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >
> > Le vendredi 22 décembre 2023, 22:02:35 CET Francis Laniel a écrit :
> > > Enables using, in code, modern hush as parser for run_command function
> > > family. It also enables the command run to be used by CLI user of modern
> > > hush.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Francis Laniel <francis.laniel at amarulasolutions.com>
> [snip]
> > > diff --git a/test/boot/bootflow.c b/test/boot/bootflow.c
> > > index a9b555c779..104f49deef 100644
> > > --- a/test/boot/bootflow.c
> > > +++ b/test/boot/bootflow.c
> > > @@ -710,7 +710,21 @@ static int bootflow_scan_menu_boot(struct
> > > unit_test_state *uts) ut_assert_skip_to_line("(2 bootflows, 2 valid)");
> > >
> > >     ut_assert_nextline("Selected: Armbian");
> > > -   ut_assert_skip_to_line("Boot failed (err=-14)");
> > > +
> > > +   if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_HUSH_OLD_PARSER) {
> > > +           /*
> > > +            * With old hush, despite booti failing to boot, i.e. returning
> > > +            * CMD_RET_FAILURE, run_command() returns 0 which leads
> > bootflow_boot(),
> > > as +                 * we are using bootmeth_script here, to return -EFAULT.
> > > +            */
> > > +           ut_assert_skip_to_line("Boot failed (err=-14)");
> > > +   } else if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_HUSH_MODERN_PARSER) {
> > > +           /*
> > > +            * While with modern one, run_command() propagates
> > CMD_RET_FAILURE
> > > returned +           * by booti, so we get 1 here.
> > > +            */
> > > +           ut_assert_skip_to_line("Boot failed (err=1)");
> > > +   }
> >
> > I would like to give a bit of context here.
> > With the following patch:
> > diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_ut.py b/test/py/tests/test_ut.py
> > index c169c835e3..cc5adda0a3 100644
> > --- a/test/py/tests/test_ut.py
> > +++ b/test/py/tests/test_ut.py
> > @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ else
> >         fi
> >  fi
> >  booti ${kernel_addr_r} ${ramdisk_addr_r} ${fdt_addr_r}
> > -
> > +echo $?
> >  # Recompile with:
> >  # mkimage -C none -A arm -T script -d /boot/boot.cmd /boot/boot.scr
> >  ''' % (mmc_dev)
> > We can easily see that booti is failing while running the test:
> > $ ./test/py/test.py -o log_cli=true -s --build -v -k
> > 'test_ut[ut_bootstd_bootflow_scan_menu_boot'
> > ...
> > Aborting!
> > Failed to load '/boot/dtb/rockchip/overlay/-fixup.scr'
> > 1
> >
> > The problem with old hush, is that the 1 returned here, which corresponds to
> > CMD_RET_FAILURE, is not propagated as the return value of run_command().
> > So, this lead the -EFAULT branch here to be taken:
> > int bootflow_boot(struct bootflow *bflow)
> > {
> >       /* ... */
> >
> >       ret = bootmeth_boot(bflow->method, bflow);
> >       if (ret)
> >               return log_msg_ret("boot", ret);
> >
> >       /*
> >        * internal error, should not get here since we should have booted
> >        * something or returned an error
> >        */
> >
> >       return log_msg_ret("end", -EFAULT);
> > }
> >
> > With modern hush, CMD_RET_FAILURE is propagated as the return value of
> > run_command().
> > As a consequence, we return with log_mst_ret("boot", 1), which leaded to this
> > test to fail.
> > The above modification consists in adapting the expected output to the current
> > shell flavor.
> > I think this is the good thing to do, as I find modern hush behavior better
> > than the old one, i.e. it propagates CMD_RET_FAILURE as return of
> > run_command().
>
> Oh very nice, thanks for digging in to this and explaining!

Yes, thank you from me too!


- Simon