Hi,
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 03:37, Thomas Petazzoni thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com wrote:
Hello Stefan,
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 12:30:57 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
It's weird to me that it's happening with this SoC because it's based on ARM926ejs which is widely used I assume. Shouldn't have anyone already encountered the bug? Or is nobody actually booting a fitImage and had the luck to never call memcpy with src == dest anywhere else in the code?
I did some work on the SPEAr600 some years ago and I'm pretty sure that I never used FIT image at that time. Sorry, but I can't remember any similar issues like these.
Well, the issue is in generic ARM code, so whether it's SPEAr600 or any other ARM SoC should not really matter here.
FWIW, I would not oppose to having at least this "src == dest" check in the code again, since it doesn't really make sense to overwrite an area with the same value - other than for testing purposes.
The thing is that the memcpy() that gets called does have this src == dest check, as its code starts with:
ENTRY(memcpy) cmp r0, r1 bxeq lr
which, if my assembly-fu is not bad, means: if first argument == second argument, then return. But even with this src == dest check within memcpy() itself, Quentin is seeing memmove() hang when src == dest.
Another thing is that the memmove() code looks like this:
{ char *tmp, *s;
if (dest <= src) { memcpy(dest, src, count);However, having dest <= src does not guarantee that the destination and source areas are non-overlapping. And the normal semantic for memcpy() is that it doesn't work for overlapping areas. From memcpy(3):
The memcpy() function copies n bytes from memory area src to memory area dest. The memory areas must not overlap. Use memmove(3) if the memory areas do overlap.
Of course, this man page documents the memcpy() implementation from the C library, and perhaps the semantic of U-Boot memcpy is different.
Yes I suppose it is different.
So is it correct to use memcpy() to implement memmove() when the areas are overlapping ?
Strictly speaking, no. I think perhaps my patch should have been more careful.
Perhaps Simon Glass, who did the change to use memcpy() in cb0eae8cf8aaca76910dee4c7eb536d0814d1bd2 could comment on that ?
That said, I cannot see why the memcpy() fails. How do you explain that? If you revert my change, does it work?
Best regards,
Thomas
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Regards, Simon