| Message ID | loom.20130716T085434-836@post.gmane.org |
|---|---|
| State | RFC |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
Hi Rommel, > Hi All, > > U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3] > > Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write" > command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4 > code. The ext4 code at u-boot (especially ext4write) needs special attention. It is on top of my list to refactor and clean up this code base (especially the ext4write command). > > I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian). > There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is > used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a > correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card. > > Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken? I would need to double check it (since I'm using only ext4load at my target board currently). > > ----- > diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c > index 58880b4..22d4377 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c > @@ -1429,7 +1429,7 @@ static struct ext4_extent_header > *ext4fs_get_extent_block > while (1) { > index = (struct ext4_extent_idx *)(ext_block + 1); > > - if (le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_magic) != > EXT4_EXT_MAGIC) > + if (le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_magic) != > EXT4_EXT_MAGIC) return 0; > > if (ext_block->eh_depth == 0) > @@ -1437,14 +1437,14 @@ static struct ext4_extent_header > *ext4fs_get_extent_block > i = -1; > do { > i++; > - if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries)) > + if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries)) ^^^^^ We had some problems with unaligned access to 16 bit values recently (when those start at 0x2). It was observed on our ARM Exynos4 based target. > break; > } while (fileblock > le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_block)); > > if (--i < 0) > return 0; > > - block = le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_hi); > + block = le16_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_hi); > block = (block << 32) + > le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_lo); > if (ext4fs_devread(block << log2_blksz, 0, > fs->blksz, buf)) @@ -1543,17 +1543,17 @@ long int > read_allocated_block(struct ext2_inode *inode, int fileblock) > > do { > i++; > - if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries)) > + if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries)) > break; > } while (fileblock >= > le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_block)); if (--i >= 0) { > fileblock -= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_block); > - if (fileblock >= > le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_len)) { > + if (fileblock >= > le16_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_len)) { free(buf); > return 0; > } > > - start = le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_hi); > + start = le16_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_hi); > start = (start << 32) + > le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_lo); > free(buf); > ----- > > (Sorry, I can't CC anyone directly as I'm using the gmane "post" > interface) You can also CC ext4 u-boot's implementation authors. > > All the best, > Rommel > > > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Sorry for the extra noise. On Wednesday, July 17, 2013, Rommel G Custodio <sessyargc@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Lukasz Majewski, > > On 2013.07/16, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >> Hi Rommel, >> >> > Hi All, >> > >> > U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3] >> > >> > Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write" >> > command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4 >> > code. >> >> The ext4 code at u-boot (especially ext4write) needs special attention. >> >> It is on top of my list to refactor and clean up this code base >> (especially the ext4write command). >> > > I know the code is fairly recent and it seems limited testing (on a > limited number of platforms) has only been performed. > >> > >> > I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian). >> > There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is >> > used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a >> > correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card. >> > >> > Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken? >> >> I would need to double check it (since I'm using only ext4load at my >> target board currently). >> > > Without the patches below ext4load/ext2load doesn't work correctly on the > ml507. > > For testing, the default settings are used enabled). The SD card mounts > correctly using ext4 in Linux but I get this error in u-boot: > ml507:/# ext4ls mmc 0:1 > <DIR> 4096 . > <DIR> 4096 .. > <DIR> 16384 lost+found > 9294153 mybit.ace > ml507:/# ext2ls mmc 0:1 > <DIR> 4096 . > <DIR> 4096 .. > <DIR> 16384 lost+found > 9294153 mybit.ace > ml507:/# ext4load mmc 0:1 1000000 /mybit.ace > invalid extent block > ml507:/# ext2load mmc 0:1 1000000 mybit.ace > invalid extent block > >> > do { >> > i++; >> > - if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries)) >> > + if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries)) >> ^^^^^ We had some problems with >> unaligned access to 16 bit values >> recently (when those start at 0x2). >> It was observed on our ARM Exynos4 >> based target. >> >> >> > >> > (Sorry, I can't CC anyone directly as I'm using the gmane "post" >> > interface) >> >> You can also CC ext4 u-boot's implementation authors. Forgot to Cc the list And the original author's email seem to be bouncing. >> >> > >> > All the best, >> > Rommel >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > U-Boot mailing list >> > U-Boot@lists.denx.de >> > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> >> Lukasz Majewski >> >> Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group >
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Rommel Custodio sessyargc+uboot@gmail.com wrote, Hi Rommel, > Hi All, > > U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3] > > Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write" > command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4 > code. > > I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian). > There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is > used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a > correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card. > > Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken? What kind of mailer program have you used to sent this e-mail? I receive following errors: fatal: corrupt patch at line 111 I cannot apply this patch with either git am -3 or git apply. Were you using git send-email?
+Tom On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Rommel Custodio > sessyargc+uboot@gmail.com wrote, > > Hi Rommel, > > > Hi All, > > > > U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3] > > > > Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write" > > command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4 > > code. > > > > I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian). > > There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is > > used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a > > correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card. > > > > Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken? > > What kind of mailer program have you used to sent this e-mail? > I receive following errors: > > fatal: corrupt patch at line 111 > > I cannot apply this patch with either git am -3 or git apply. > > Were you using git send-email? > It seems like we should try to fix this before the release? Regards, Simon
Hi all, On 21.07.2013 06:32, Simon Glass wrote: > +Tom > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:14:35 +0000 (UTC) Rommel Custodio >> sessyargc+uboot@gmail.com wrote, >> >> Hi Rommel, >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3] >>> >>> Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write" >>> command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4 >>> code. >>> >>> I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian). >>> There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is >>> used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a >>> correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card. >>> >>> Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken? >> >> What kind of mailer program have you used to sent this e-mail? >> I receive following errors: >> >> fatal: corrupt patch at line 111 >> >> I cannot apply this patch with either git am -3 or git apply. >> >> Were you using git send-email? >> > > It seems like we should try to fix this before the release? +1 I can confirm that reading ext4 extended header on BE machine (avr32) is broken. I'm currently on it to get it working by using Rommel's patch. Regards Andreas Bießmann
Hi! > U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3] > > Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write" command. > Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4 code. > > I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian). > There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is used. > Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a correctly ext4 > formatted MMC/SD card. > > Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken? This fixed ext4 on powerpc-based board. Thanks! Tested-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c index 58880b4..22d4377 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c @@ -1429,7 +1429,7 @@ static struct ext4_extent_header *ext4fs_get_extent_block while (1) { index = (struct ext4_extent_idx *)(ext_block + 1); - if (le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_magic) != EXT4_EXT_MAGIC) + if (le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_magic) != EXT4_EXT_MAGIC) return 0;
Hi All, U-Boot 2013.07-rc3 [ELDK 5.2.1 / ELDK 5.3] Now I've started to use the new ext4 code. I need the "ext4write" command. Though there seems to be several problems with the ext2/ext4 code. I am testing on an ml507 (PPC440, Big Endian). There are some cases where the a field is 16-bit but le32_to_cpu() is used. Some checks (ie eh_magic) fails to match even if I use a correctly ext4 formatted MMC/SD card. Does these seem right? Or am I mistaken? ----- if (ext_block->eh_depth == 0) @@ -1437,14 +1437,14 @@ static struct ext4_extent_header *ext4fs_get_extent_block i = -1; do { i++; - if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries)) + if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries)) break; } while (fileblock > le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_block)); if (--i < 0) return 0; - block = le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_hi); + block = le16_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_hi); block = (block << 32) + le32_to_cpu(index[i].ei_leaf_lo); if (ext4fs_devread(block << log2_blksz, 0, fs->blksz, buf)) @@ -1543,17 +1543,17 @@ long int read_allocated_block(struct ext2_inode *inode, int fileblock) do { i++; - if (i >= le32_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries)) + if (i >= le16_to_cpu(ext_block->eh_entries)) break; } while (fileblock >= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_block)); if (--i >= 0) { fileblock -= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_block); - if (fileblock >= le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_len)) { + if (fileblock >= le16_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_len)) { free(buf); return 0; } - start = le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_hi); + start = le16_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_hi); start = (start << 32) + le32_to_cpu(extent[i].ee_start_lo); free(buf); ----- (Sorry, I can't CC anyone directly as I'm using the gmane "post" interface) All the best, Rommel