[PATCH] Fix fastboot handling of partitions when no slots are supported

[Mattijs Korpershoek]

Hi Federico,

Thank you for the patch.

On mar., janv. 28, 2025 at 12:18, Federico Fuga via B4 Relay <devnull+fuga.studiofuga.com at kernel.org> wrote:

> From: Federico Fuga <fuga at studiofuga.com>
>
> The fastboot module has a bug that prevents some command to work
> properly on devices that haven't an Android-like partition scheme, that
> is, just one spl and one kernel partition, instead of the redundant
> scheme with _a and _b slots.
>
> This is the schema of our NAND storage (board is based on an AllWinner
> A33 sunxi chip):
>
> => mtdparts
>
> device nand0 <1c03000.nand>, # parts = 4
>  #: name         size            net size        offset          mask_flags
>  0: spl          0x00020000      0x00020000      0x00000000      0
>  1: uboot        0x00100000      0x00100000      0x00020000      0
>  2: kernel_a     0x00400000      0x00400000      0x00120000      0
>  3: ubi          0x07ae0000      0x079e0000 (!)  0x00520000      0
>
> active partition: nand0,0 - (spl) 0x00020000 @ 0x00000000
>
> This happens when we try to erase the spl partition using fastboot:
>
> $ fastboot erase spl
> Erasing 'spl_a'               FAILED (remote: 'invalid NAND device')
> fastboot: error: Command failed
>
> The error occurs because getvars fails to handle the error returned by
> nand layer when a partition cannot be found.
>
> Indeed, getvar_get_part_info returns what is returned by
> fastboot_nand_get_part_info (0 on success, 1 on failure) but it should
> return -ENODEV or -EINVAL instead. Since the cause of failure is not
> returned by the nand function, I decided to return -EINVAL to make it
> simple.
>
> Signed-off-by: Federico Fuga <fuga at studiofuga.com>

I could apply this version, finally :)

b4 got a bit confused since it has been send as a v1 but using the
following command worked for me:

$ b4 shazam -s -l --check 20250128-fastboot_slot_fix-v1-1-1a4688936662 at studiofuga.com -v1

Now for the patch itself:

Please use 'fastboot:' prefix as a commit title.
Use '$ git log --oneline -- drivers/fastboot/' to see what other commits
where using as a title.

Some more comments below. Please make sure to answer this email to
acknowledge/reject review feedback.
Also, when sending a v2, please make sure to include a changelog.

If you need help setting things up properly, let me know. I'm also
reachable on IRC https://libera.chat/, channel #u-boot, my nickame is mkorpershoek.

> ---
>  drivers/fastboot/fb_getvar.c | 5 ++++-
>  drivers/fastboot/fb_nand.c   | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/fastboot/fb_getvar.c b/drivers/fastboot/fb_getvar.c
> index 9c2ce65a4e5bce0da6b18aa1b2818f7db556c528..816ed8a6213b5c1f0948a813c6f6a865a4b47ba8 100644
> --- a/drivers/fastboot/fb_getvar.c
> +++ b/drivers/fastboot/fb_getvar.c
> @@ -121,8 +121,11 @@ static int getvar_get_part_info(const char *part_name, char *response,
>  			*size = disk_part.size * disk_part.blksz;
>  	} else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_NAND)) {
>  		r = fastboot_nand_get_part_info(part_name, &part_info, response);
> -		if (r >= 0 && size)
> +		if (r == 0 && size) {
>  			*size = part_info->size;

Maybe the patch is simpler this way, but I think that it would be better
if fastboot_mmc_get_part_info() and fastboot_nand_get_part_info() would
behave the same. The naming is pretty close already, and having
different behaviours/return codes seems confusing to me.

Is there a strong reason for not modifying fb_nand_lookup() so that it
will return a negative error code?

This way, we can keep the same logic in getvar_get_part_info()

> +		} else {
> +			r = -EINVAL;
> +		}
>  	} else {
>  		fastboot_fail("this storage is not supported in bootloader", response);
>  		r = -ENODEV;
> diff --git a/drivers/fastboot/fb_nand.c b/drivers/fastboot/fb_nand.c
> index afc64fd5280717ae4041ed70268ccc01cfbb0496..9e2f7c01895785a4409eb67ea48abd02a6a6da26 100644
> --- a/drivers/fastboot/fb_nand.c
> +++ b/drivers/fastboot/fb_nand.c
> @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ static lbaint_t fb_nand_sparse_reserve(struct sparse_storage *info,
>   *
>   * @part_name: Named device to lookup
>   * @part_info: Pointer to returned part_info pointer
> - * @response: Pointer to fastboot response buffer
> + * @response: 0 on success, 1 otherwise

Why has this been modified? @response is still a pointer to fastboot
response buffer.

If we wish to document the return code, use the Return: syntax:

For example, here it would be:

/**
 * fastboot_nand_get_part_info() - Lookup NAND partion by name
 *
 * @part_name: Named device to lookup
 * @part_info: Pointer to returned part_info pointer
 * @response: Pointer to fastboot response buffer
 *
 * Return: 0 on success, 1 otherwise
 */

>   */
>  int fastboot_nand_get_part_info(const char *part_name,
>  				struct part_info **part_info, char *response)
>
> ---
> base-commit: a517796cfa5d8f4ca2f0c11c78c24a08a102c047
> change-id: 20250128-fastboot_slot_fix-69251576d9bb
>
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Federico Fuga <fuga at studiofuga.com>