How deep is U-Boot's `bootm` command checking for a valid header?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












0















TL;DR: How many ways can the bootm command fail with this error in version 1.1.4?:



# bootm
Booting image at 31000000
Bad Magic Number


Background:



I've bricked a device whose U-Boot is deeply crippled as far as its ability to load bytes from external sources, so I've written a quick script to automatically generate mm commands details here (including healthy boot messages) to populate the RAM and write that back to the flash with nandw and that seems to be working but the bootm command is still grumpy.



The binary data is a valid uImage file and is written into address 0x31000000 and it does have the magic number of 0x27051956 at that memory address but the system is cowardly refusing to boot. Here's the whole header from hexdump -C of the uImage file:



00000000 27 05 19 56 f4 91 0f 3f 4c 11 3c 57 00 17 a3 40 |'..V...?L.<W...@|
00000010 30 00 80 00 30 00 80 00 f4 67 23 80 05 02 02 00 |0...0....g#.....|
00000020 4c 69 6e 75 78 2d 32 2e 36 2e 31 38 2e 32 2d 6e |Linux-2.6.18.2-n|
00000030 74 78 36 30 30 2d 76 30 2e 38 32 00 00 00 00 00 |tx600-v0.82.....|
00000040 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 |................|


I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, but I'm expecting to at least get to the CRC check.










share|improve this question






















  • It looks like I messed up the endianess of the data I was storing so that's the answer here. In looking at the source code, it looks like it's only the magic number in the header.

    – RandomInsano
    Feb 18 at 4:30















0















TL;DR: How many ways can the bootm command fail with this error in version 1.1.4?:



# bootm
Booting image at 31000000
Bad Magic Number


Background:



I've bricked a device whose U-Boot is deeply crippled as far as its ability to load bytes from external sources, so I've written a quick script to automatically generate mm commands details here (including healthy boot messages) to populate the RAM and write that back to the flash with nandw and that seems to be working but the bootm command is still grumpy.



The binary data is a valid uImage file and is written into address 0x31000000 and it does have the magic number of 0x27051956 at that memory address but the system is cowardly refusing to boot. Here's the whole header from hexdump -C of the uImage file:



00000000 27 05 19 56 f4 91 0f 3f 4c 11 3c 57 00 17 a3 40 |'..V...?L.<W...@|
00000010 30 00 80 00 30 00 80 00 f4 67 23 80 05 02 02 00 |0...0....g#.....|
00000020 4c 69 6e 75 78 2d 32 2e 36 2e 31 38 2e 32 2d 6e |Linux-2.6.18.2-n|
00000030 74 78 36 30 30 2d 76 30 2e 38 32 00 00 00 00 00 |tx600-v0.82.....|
00000040 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 |................|


I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, but I'm expecting to at least get to the CRC check.










share|improve this question






















  • It looks like I messed up the endianess of the data I was storing so that's the answer here. In looking at the source code, it looks like it's only the magic number in the header.

    – RandomInsano
    Feb 18 at 4:30













0












0








0








TL;DR: How many ways can the bootm command fail with this error in version 1.1.4?:



# bootm
Booting image at 31000000
Bad Magic Number


Background:



I've bricked a device whose U-Boot is deeply crippled as far as its ability to load bytes from external sources, so I've written a quick script to automatically generate mm commands details here (including healthy boot messages) to populate the RAM and write that back to the flash with nandw and that seems to be working but the bootm command is still grumpy.



The binary data is a valid uImage file and is written into address 0x31000000 and it does have the magic number of 0x27051956 at that memory address but the system is cowardly refusing to boot. Here's the whole header from hexdump -C of the uImage file:



00000000 27 05 19 56 f4 91 0f 3f 4c 11 3c 57 00 17 a3 40 |'..V...?L.<W...@|
00000010 30 00 80 00 30 00 80 00 f4 67 23 80 05 02 02 00 |0...0....g#.....|
00000020 4c 69 6e 75 78 2d 32 2e 36 2e 31 38 2e 32 2d 6e |Linux-2.6.18.2-n|
00000030 74 78 36 30 30 2d 76 30 2e 38 32 00 00 00 00 00 |tx600-v0.82.....|
00000040 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 |................|


I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, but I'm expecting to at least get to the CRC check.










share|improve this question














TL;DR: How many ways can the bootm command fail with this error in version 1.1.4?:



# bootm
Booting image at 31000000
Bad Magic Number


Background:



I've bricked a device whose U-Boot is deeply crippled as far as its ability to load bytes from external sources, so I've written a quick script to automatically generate mm commands details here (including healthy boot messages) to populate the RAM and write that back to the flash with nandw and that seems to be working but the bootm command is still grumpy.



The binary data is a valid uImage file and is written into address 0x31000000 and it does have the magic number of 0x27051956 at that memory address but the system is cowardly refusing to boot. Here's the whole header from hexdump -C of the uImage file:



00000000 27 05 19 56 f4 91 0f 3f 4c 11 3c 57 00 17 a3 40 |'..V...?L.<W...@|
00000010 30 00 80 00 30 00 80 00 f4 67 23 80 05 02 02 00 |0...0....g#.....|
00000020 4c 69 6e 75 78 2d 32 2e 36 2e 31 38 2e 32 2d 6e |Linux-2.6.18.2-n|
00000030 74 78 36 30 30 2d 76 30 2e 38 32 00 00 00 00 00 |tx600-v0.82.....|
00000040 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 00 00 a0 e1 |................|


I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, but I'm expecting to at least get to the CRC check.







embedded arm u-boot






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Feb 17 at 21:22









RandomInsanoRandomInsano

15015




15015












  • It looks like I messed up the endianess of the data I was storing so that's the answer here. In looking at the source code, it looks like it's only the magic number in the header.

    – RandomInsano
    Feb 18 at 4:30

















  • It looks like I messed up the endianess of the data I was storing so that's the answer here. In looking at the source code, it looks like it's only the magic number in the header.

    – RandomInsano
    Feb 18 at 4:30
















It looks like I messed up the endianess of the data I was storing so that's the answer here. In looking at the source code, it looks like it's only the magic number in the header.

– RandomInsano
Feb 18 at 4:30





It looks like I messed up the endianess of the data I was storing so that's the answer here. In looking at the source code, it looks like it's only the magic number in the header.

– RandomInsano
Feb 18 at 4:30










0






active

oldest

votes











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f501237%2fhow-deep-is-u-boots-bootm-command-checking-for-a-valid-header%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f501237%2fhow-deep-is-u-boots-bootm-command-checking-for-a-valid-header%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown






Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Bahrain

Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay