project:cfg:BoardConfig_IPC: Added fastboot BoardConfig file and firmware post-scripts, distinguishing between
the BoardConfigs for Luckfox Pico Pro and Luckfox Pico Max. project:app: Added fastboot_client and rk_smart_door
for quick boot applications; updated rkipc app to adapt to the latest media library. media:samples: Added more
usage examples. media:rockit: Fixed bugs; removed support for retrieving data frames from VPSS. media:isp:
Updated rkaiq library and related tools to support connection to RKISP_Tuner. sysdrv:Makefile: Added support for
compiling drv_ko on Luckfox Pico Ultra W using Ubuntu; added support for custom root filesystem.
sysdrv:tools:board: Updated Buildroot optional mirror sources, updated some software versions, and stored device
tree files and configuration files that undergo multiple modifications for U-Boot and kernel separately.
sysdrv:source:mcu: Used RISC-V MCU SDK with RT-Thread system, mainly for initializing camera AE during quick
boot. sysdrv:source:uboot: Added support for fastboot; added high baud rate DDR bin for serial firmware upgrades.
sysdrv:source:kernel: Upgraded to version 5.10.160; increased NPU frequency for RV1106G3; added support for
fastboot.
Signed-off-by: luckfox-eng29 <eng29@luckfox.com>
==================
BPF Selftest Notes
==================
General instructions on running selftests can be found in
`Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst`_.
Additional information about selftest failures are
documented here.
profiler[23] test failures with clang/llvm <12.0.0
==================================================
With clang/llvm <12.0.0, the profiler[23] test may fail.
The symptom looks like
.. code-block:: c
// r9 is a pointer to map_value
// r7 is a scalar
17: bf 96 00 00 00 00 00 00 r6 = r9
18: 0f 76 00 00 00 00 00 00 r6 += r7
math between map_value pointer and register with unbounded min value is not allowed
// the instructions below will not be seen in the verifier log
19: a5 07 01 00 01 01 00 00 if r7 < 257 goto +1
20: bf 96 00 00 00 00 00 00 r6 = r9
// r6 is used here
The verifier will reject such code with above error.
At insn 18 the r7 is indeed unbounded. The later insn 19 checks the bounds and
the insn 20 undoes map_value addition. It is currently impossible for the
verifier to understand such speculative pointer arithmetic.
Hence
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85570
addresses it on the compiler side. It was committed on llvm 12.
The corresponding C code
.. code-block:: c
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_CGROUPS_PATH_DEPTH; i++) {
filepart_length = bpf_probe_read_str(payload, ...);
if (filepart_length <= MAX_PATH) {
barrier_var(filepart_length); // workaround
payload += filepart_length;
}
}
bpf_iter test failures with clang/llvm 10.0.0
=============================================
With clang/llvm 10.0.0, the following two bpf_iter tests failed:
* ``bpf_iter/ipv6_route``
* ``bpf_iter/netlink``
The symptom for ``bpf_iter/ipv6_route`` looks like
.. code-block:: c
2: (79) r8 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8)
...
14: (bf) r2 = r8
15: (0f) r2 += r1
; BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "%pi6 %02x ", &rt->fib6_dst.addr, rt->fib6_dst.plen);
16: (7b) *(u64 *)(r8 +64) = r2
only read is supported
The symptom for ``bpf_iter/netlink`` looks like
.. code-block:: c
; struct netlink_sock *nlk = ctx->sk;
2: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r1 +8)
...
15: (bf) r2 = r7
16: (0f) r2 += r1
; BPF_SEQ_PRINTF(seq, "%pK %-3d ", s, s->sk_protocol);
17: (7b) *(u64 *)(r7 +0) = r2
only read is supported
This is due to a llvm BPF backend bug. The fix
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78466
has been pushed to llvm 10.x release branch and will be
available in 10.0.1. The fix is available in llvm 11.0.0 trunk.
BPF CO-RE-based tests and Clang version
=======================================
A set of selftests use BPF target-specific built-ins, which might require
bleeding-edge Clang versions (Clang 12 nightly at this time).
Few sub-tests of core_reloc test suit (part of test_progs test runner) require
the following built-ins, listed with corresponding Clang diffs introducing
them to Clang/LLVM. These sub-tests are going to be skipped if Clang is too
old to support them, they shouldn't cause build failures or runtime test
failures:
- __builtin_btf_type_id() ([0], [1], [2]);
- __builtin_preserve_type_info(), __builtin_preserve_enum_value() ([3], [4]).
[0] https://reviews.llvm.org/D74572
[1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D74668
[2] https://reviews.llvm.org/D85174
[3] https://reviews.llvm.org/D83878
[4] https://reviews.llvm.org/D83242