[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4] xen: arm: Update arm64 image header
On 29.06.2016 13:08, Dirk Behme wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 29.06.2016 12:32, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Dirk,
On 27/06/2016 08:53, Dirk Behme wrote:
+ if ( (end - start) > size ) {
+ printk(XENLOG_ERR "Error: Kernel Image size: %lu bytes >
bootmodule size: %lu bytes\n",
+ zimage.image_size, (uint64_t)size);
+ printk(XENLOG_ERR "The field 'size' does not match the size
of blob!\n");
return -EINVAL;
+ }
This patch is breaking boot on any ARM64 platform (UEFI and
bootwrapper).
Well, I wonder if it breaks because the kernel is too large? As intended?
You are the expert on this, so I just can give my (limited?) understanding:
In my use case, starting with the Xen development and not really knowing
the details, taking a random example from the net I had configured 10MB
in the device tree:
module@0x48200000 {
compatible = "xen,linux-zimage", "xen,multiboot-module";
reg = <0x48200000 0x00A00000>; /* Max Image size 10MB */
};
This failed silently. No error message.
Without knowing any details, my first workaround was to make the kernel
smaller. Having a kernel Image smaller than 10MB worked, then.
While debugging it, I found that these 0x00A00000 are used for 'size'.
And increasing it to 0x00F00000 (15MB) does work for me, now.
I don't know anything aobut UEFI and bootwrapper,
Just a question: In case of UEFI and bootwrapper, does Xen know the
exact real file size of the Image file?
Then that's the difference to the device tree case, where we don't know
the Image file size and use a max size estimation from the device tree.
Then we should limit the image_size error message to the device tree
case only. Ignoring the BSS overhead issue, as the size given by the
device tree is an estimation, anyhow.
Best regards
Dirk
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
