linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/32] ARM: dts: omap3-gta04: make NAND partitions compatible with recent U-Boot

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:27:31 +0200
From:   "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To:     Ladislav Michl <ladis@...ux-mips.org>
Cc:     Marek Belisko <marek@...delico.com>,
        Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/32] ARM: dts: omap3-gta04: make NAND partitions compatible with recent U-Boot


> Am 25.07.2018 um 10:33 schrieb Ladislav Michl <ladis@...ux-mips.org>:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:18:28AM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> 
>>> Am 25.07.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Ladislav Michl <ladis@...ux-mips.org>:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:58:41AM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>> Vendor defined U-Boot has changed the partition scheme a while ago:
>>>> 
>>>> * kernel partition 6MB
>>>> * file system partition uses the remainder up to end of the NAND
>>>> * increased size of the environment partition (to get an OneNAND compatible base address)
>>>> * shrink the U-Boot partition
>>>> 
>>>> Let's be compatible (e.g. Debian kernel built from upstream).
>>> 
>>> That, in fact, is breaking compatibility.
>> 
>> With what? Nobody is using the old u-boot partition scheme any more
>> (it is >5 years old).
>> 
>>> So once you are touching this
>>> what about relying on partitioning provided by bootloader just to prevent
>>> something like this happening again?
>> 
>> Well, we define what compatible means here (since we are the vendor).
>> And people complain with us. We simply recommend them to upgrade the
>> boot-loader.
> 
> Fair enough. Suggestion was to remove partitioning scheme from DTB alltogether
> and let U-Boot provide one. But you being vendor you decide, of course :)
> (I'd use only two partitions: MLO and UBI, latter one with BCH8, and store
> everything in UBI volumes. That's a bit more flexible approach)

Yes, that is a good goal for a future setup and would of course be better.
Like U-Boot already provides the memory layout for RAM.

Hopefully, someone will work out patches for u-boot plus kernel (which is always
painful to keep these two in sync and tested). But I don't want to do that now.

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus