Re: [XEN v1] xen/Arm: Probe the entry point address of an uImage correctly

[Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 08/12/2022 14:51, Julien Grall wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution 
> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Title extra NIT: I have seen it multiple time and so far refrain to say
> it. Please use 'arm' rather than 'Arm'. This is for consistency in the
> way we name the subsystem in the title.
> 
> On 08/12/2022 12:49, Ayan Kumar Halder wrote:
>> Currently, kernel_uimage_probe() does not set info->zimage.start. As a
>> result, it contains the default value (ie 0). This causes,
>> kernel_zimage_place() to treat the binary (contained within uImage) as
>> position independent executable. Thus, it loads it at an incorrect address.
>>
>> The correct approach would be to read "uimage.ep" and set
>> info->zimage.start. This will ensure that the binary is loaded at the
>> correct address.
> 
> In non-statically allocated setup, a user doesn't know where the memory
> for dom0/domU will be allocated.
> 
> So I think this was correct to ignore the address. In fact, I am worry
> that...
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ayan Kumar Halder <ayan.kumar.halder@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> I uncovered this issue while loading Zephyr as a dom0less domU with Xen on
>> R52 FVP. Zephyr builds with static device tree. Thus, the load address is
>> always fixed.
>>
>>   xen/arch/arm/kernel.c | 2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/kernel.c b/xen/arch/arm/kernel.c
>> index 2556a45c38..e4e8c67669 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/kernel.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/kernel.c
>> @@ -222,6 +222,8 @@ static int __init kernel_uimage_probe(struct kernel_info 
>> *info,
>>       if ( len > size - sizeof(uimage) )
>>           return -EINVAL;
>>
>> +    info->zimage.start = be32_to_cpu(uimage.ep);
> ... this will now ended up to break anyone that may have set an address
> but didn't care where it should be loaded.
> 
> I also understand your use case but now, we have contradictory
> approaches. I am not entirely sure how we can solve it. We may have to
> break those users (Cc some folks that may use it). But we should figure
> out what is the alternative for them.
> 
> If we decide to break those users, then this should be documented in the
> commit message and in docs/misc/arm/booting.txt (which interestingly
> didn't mention uImage).
> 
So the first issue with Zephyr is that it does not support zImage protocol for 
arm32.
Volodymyr added support only for Image header for arm64 Zephyr.
I guess this is why Ayan, willing to boot it on Xen (arm32), decided to add 
u-boot header.

Now, there is also a question about supporting arm64 uImage kernels. In Xen 
kernel_zimage_place,
we do:
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_64
    if ( info->type == DOMAIN_64BIT )
        return info->mem.bank[0].start + info->zimage.text_offset;
#endif

So if we modify the uImage behavior for arm32, we will break consistency with 
arm64
(we would take uImage entry point address into account for arm32 but not for 
arm64).
At the moment at least they are in sync.


> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Julien Grall

~Michal