linux-kernel - Re: ARM expections for location of kernel, ramdisk and dtb

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]

Message-ID: <20191127231900.GG25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 27 Nov 2019 23:19:00 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Cc:     Hamish Martin <Hamish.Martin@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        "nico@...xnic.net" <nico@...xnic.net>,
        "linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stefan@...er.ch" <stefan@...er.ch>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "natechancellor@...il.com" <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: ARM expections for location of kernel, ramdisk and dtb

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:15:57PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 09:26 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 08:20:12AM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > 
> > > We're updating our systems to use the latest kernel. For many of them
> > > this is a fairly large leap. One problem we've hit is that durng boot
> > > the dtb is clobbered by the uncompressed kernel.
> > > 
> > > Here's a snippet of output from u-boot
> > > 
> > > ## Loading kernel from FIT Image at 62000000 ...
> > >    Using 'XS916MXS@2' configuration
> > >    Trying 'kernel@1' kernel subimage
> > >      Description:  linux
> > >      Created:      2019-11-27   6:53:48 UTC
> > >      Type:         Kernel Image
> > >      Compression:  uncompressed
> > >      Data Start:   0x62000174
> > >      Data Size:    3495432 Bytes = 3.3 MiB
> > >      Architecture: ARM
> > >      OS:           Linux
> > >      Load Address: 0x00800000
> > >      Entry Point:  0x60800000
> > >    ...
> > >    Booting using the fdt blob at 0x63b90f6c
> > >    Loading Kernel Image ... OK
> > >    Loading Ramdisk to 6e7c6000, end 70000000 ... OK
> > >    Loading Device Tree to 607fb000, end 607fffd8 ... OK
> > > 
> > > Starting kernel ...
> > > 
> > > Uncompressing Linux... done, booting the kernel.
> > > 
> > > Error: invalid dtb and unrecognized/unsupported machine ID
> > >   r1=0x0000206e, r2=0x00000000
> > > 
> > > Between old and new the location of the devicetree hasn't actually
> > > changed. But what has changed is the size of the kernel the self
> > > extracting kernel unpacks to 0x60008000 and with our current
> > > configuration extends into where the dtb is located.
> > > 
> > > Documentation/arm/booting.rst says that "The dtb must be placed in a
> > > region of memory where the kernel decompressor will not overwrite it". 
> > > 
> > > This suggests that the problem is with our u-boot configuration, but
> > > how is u-boot supposed to know where the self-extracting kernel is
> > > going to place things? As far as I can tell u-boot is doing a
> > > reasonable job of finding a place to put the dtb which it thinks is
> > > unused. I'm not sure why it's picked 0x607fb000 instead of putting it
> > > just under the ramdisk but regardless with the information u-boot has
> > > that address is up for grabs.
> > > 
> > > Has this come up before? The self-extraction code is fairly careful not
> > > to overwrite itself but doesn't seem to pay any attention to the dtb
> > > which surprised me. So I wonder if I'm missing something?
> > 
> > The self-extraction hasn't changed much over the years, and basically
> > follows the same method which has worked for the vast majority of
> > platforms.
> > 
> > Where things fall down is where things are placed too close, and yes,
> > as the kernel grows, what was reasonable years ago becomes too close
> > with modern kernels.
> > 
> > The problem has been compounded by the various different compression
> > algorithms that can now be used for the compressed kernel.
> > 
> 
> I don't think it's that we don't know how big the extracted kernel will
> be. It's just that we aren't doing anything with that information w.r.t
> the dtb.

I believe u-boot tried at one point to instigate some kind of standard
placement of the kernel / dtb with respect to the available RAM, but
vendors tried hard to ignore u-boot and go their own way - resulting
in systems that didn't boot without customising various u-boot
environment variables.  It's very annoying when vendors ignore the
community...

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up