Re: [PATCH] read_file: Make it work on tftp servers which do not pass size

[Jan Weitzel <J.Weitzel@phytec.de>]

Am Freitag, den 21.06.2013, 09:10 +0200 schrieb Sascha Hauer:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:03:31AM +0200, Jan Weitzel wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 20.06.2013, 17:24 +0200 schrieb Sascha Hauer:
> > > 
> > > How do you want to do that? You would have to transfer the whole file
> > > first and see how big it is. That works for small files we expect to fit
> > > into memory like the ones read_file normally is called with. If you want
> > > to transfer a rootfs image it might happen that it's bigger than the
> > > available memory.
> > That's a good point. I didn't see a way for big files. But setting the
> > st_size to FILESIZE_MAX can cause trouble in other commands. ubiformat
> > only blames that is doesn't fit to eraseblock boundaries.
> 
> Have you tried it?
Yes, with a v2013.03.0 based barebox. Without the patch ubiformat -f
erase the ubi volume and "writes" a image of size 0.
The patched version stumbles over:

 if (st_size % mtd->eb_size) {
                sys_errmsg("file \"%s\" (size %lld bytes) is not
multiple of "
                           "eraseblock size (%d bytes)",

> 
> > ll -l shows a
> > really big size.
> 
> You'll never see this. Listing directories is not implemented in the
> tftp protocol.
> 
I got this with automount:
barebox@Phytec phyCORE pcm049:/  ls -l /mnt/tftp/weitzel/root.ubi
100Mbps full duplex link detected
T -rwxrwxrwx 4294967295 /mnt/tftp/weitzel/root.ubi

Without the patch it was 
-rwxrwxrwx          0 /mnt/tftp/weitzel/root.ubi

> > What do you think about handle it complete in read_file
> > if size == 0?
> 
> Maybe. What happens if the file is really 0 bytes big?
copy_file and unlinking will be the cost for this special case. We
should avoid a goto again loop ;)

Jan
> 
> Sascha
> 



_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox