[PATCH v1] mtd: parsers: ofpart: Fix parsing when size-cells is 0
miquel.raynal at bootlin.com
Thu Jan 5 12:33:34 CET 2023
miquel.raynal at bootlin.com wrote on Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:40:04 +0100:
> Hi Francesco,
> francesco at dolcini.it wrote on Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:30:18 +0100:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 04:35:01PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > > marex at denx.de wrote on Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:32:28 +0100:
> > > > The second part of the message, as far as I understand it, is
> > > > "ignore problems this will cause to users of boards we do not know
> > > > about, let them run into unbootable systems after some linux kernel
> > > > update,
> > >
> > > Now you know what kernel update will break them, so you can prevent it
> > > from happening.
> > >
> > > For boards without even a dtsi in the kernel, should we care?
> > Would caring for those boards not be just exact the same as caring for
> > some UEFI/ACPI mess for which no source code is normally available and
> > nobody really known at which point the various vendors have forked their
> > source code from some Intel or AMD or whatever reference code?
> I am sorry I don't know UEFI/ACPI well enough to discuss it.
> > IMHO we should care for the multiple reason I have already written in my
> > previous emails.
> > And honestly, just as a side comment, I would feel way more happy
> > to know that the elevator control system in the elevator I use everyday
> > or the chemical industrial plan HMI next to my home is running an up to
> > date Linux system that is not affected by known security vulnerabilities
> > and they did stop updating it just because there was some random bug
> > preventing the updated kernel to boot and nobody had the time/skill to
> > investigate and fix it. 
> The issue comes from a very specific U-Boot function that should have
> never existed. I hope people working on chemical plants do not make
> use of these and will not disregard the "your DT is broken there [...]"
> warning we plan to add right before their updated board will fail. We
> are not living people in the dark, I agreed for a warning, but I don't
> think applying the proposed fix blindly is wise and future-proof.
Let's move forward with this. Let's assume my fears are baseless. We
might consider the situation where someone tries to hide the partitions
by setting #size-cell to 0 even wronger and too unlikely. Hopefully we
will not break any other existing setups by applying an always-on fix.
I would still like to see U-Boot partitions handling evolve, at least:
- fix #size-cells in fdt_fixup_mtd()
- avoid the fdt_fixup_mtd() call from Collibri boards (ie. an example
that can be followed by the other users)
On Linux side let's fix #size-cells like you proposed without filtering
against a list of compatibles. We however need to improve the
- Do it only when there are partitions declared within a NAND
- Change the warning to avoid mentioning backward compatibility, just
mention this is utterly wrong and thus the value will be set to 1
instead of 0.
- Mention in the comment above this only works on systems with <4GiB
If you think about other conditions please feel free to add them.
Do you concur?
More information about the U-Boot