u-boot VS linux

coreboot just initializes the hardware, the logo is something that the payload displays: https://www.coreboot.org/Payloads

The most typically used payload is u-boot: https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/

u-boot supports specifying splash screens via "splashfile", but it seems only bmp and maybe some raw image format are supported: https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/2f0282922b2c458eea7f85...

In other words, no support for png, which this exploit uses :). That doesn't mean that coreboot/u-boot aren't written in C though which is a language known for its vulnerabilities.

Probably a better example than WiFi would be the on-chip SDRAM controller. It's always somebody's IP and there's a blob in the boot firmware that's just binary register settings. Like so:

https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/arch/riscv/dts/...

Hello, It's my understanding that the following OSS software is used in the AtGames Legends family of products. Specifically: "Das U-Boot" https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot GPL-2.0+ Linux Kernel https://github.com/torvalds/linux GPL-2.0 The AtGames website at https://www.atgames.us/pages/credits does not contain the source code used in these products. Specifically, the GPL requires that if any modifications are made to GPL code, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL. Any modification to u-boot or the Linux Kernel adding the ability to boot a device must be made available to users of the program. Please see the following links regarding acceptable use of GPL software: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLCommercially https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLInProprietarySystem https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient Please let this request serve as written notice of a request for source code for the OSS software used in the following products: HA2810, HA2811, HA2812 AtGames Legends Core Puck HA2819 AtGames Legends Core Max HA8800, HA8801, HA8802 AtGames Legends Ultimate HA8810, HA8812 AtGames Legends Ultimate Mini HA8819, HA8819C AtGames Legends Pinball (Model unknown) AtGames Legends Pinball Micro At this point in time, AtGames is in violation of the GPL and should work to return to compliance by publishing the requested source code and making it available to users of the products.

Upstream u-boot also supports quite a lot of boards: https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/tree/master/arch/arm/dts

git clone https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot make smdk5250_defconfig Makefile:40: *** missing operator. Stop.

Hey everyone, if this question is off-topic I apologize in advance and if you can redirect me into correct channel or any other source where I can ask question I would happily do, for now I think this is the best place to ask. I daily drive arch and wanted to run freeBSD/riscv64 image on qemu following this https://wiki.freebsd.org/riscv#QEMU_Emulator and u-boot guide: https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/doc/board/emulation/qemu-riscv.rst However it seems I'm doing something wrong and compilation results in error here is all additional info: https://pastebin.com/72shccGa

The normal way this is done is the DDR training blob is just embedded into the bootloader like any other data, and the bootloader loads it into the PMU. Same exact end result, minus involving a Cortex-M4 core for no reason and minus sticking the blob in external flash for no reason. Here, this is how U-Boot does it on every other platform:

https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/drivers/ddr/imx...

Same code, just running on the main CPU because it is absolutely pointless running it on another core, unless you're trying to obfuscate things to appease the FSF. And then the blob gets appended to the U-Boot image post-build:

https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/tools/imx8m_ima...

Purism went out of their way and wasted a ton of engineering hours just to create a more convoluted process with precisely the same end result, because somehow all these extra layers of obfuscation made the blob not a blob any more in the FSF's eyes.

The RK3399 LPDDR4 training code is open-source (albeit rather impenetrable to read) - implementations exist in coreboot, u-boot, and levinboot, so closed source firmware isn't required. I'm afraid I don't know answers to the other questions.

FFS predates FreeBSD and is in some capacity supported by all 3 major BSDs. I'm fairly confident that Linux actually supports it through the ufs driver ( https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/ufs ); whether the use of different names in different places makes it better or worse is an exercise for the reader.

These are a bit easier to see what's going on:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e...

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e61...

Unfortunately Github doesn't have a way to render symbols for whitespace, but you can tell by selecting the spaces that the previous version had leading tabs. Linus changed it so that the tokens `default` and the number e.g. `12` are also separated by a tab. This is tricky, because the token "default" is seven characters, it will always give this added tab a width of 1 char which makes it always layout the same as if it were a space no matter if you use tab widths of 1, 2, 4, or 8.

There was also a Gentoo effort to run atop FreeBSD[0]. The challenge of course is that afaik none of the BSD kernel ABIs are considered stable. The stable interface is the BSD libc. That said, with binfmt_misc, I don't see a reason you couldn't just run (at least some) FreeBSD binaries on Linux with a thin syscall translation layer (rather something like qemu-system) and then your layer hooked via binfmt_misc. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this for FreeBSD, but prior efforts existed as alternate binfmts for SysVr4/5 ELF binaries[2]. Either way would take some elbow grease, but you *might* even be able just reuse binfmt_elf and just have a new interpreter for FreeBSD elf.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/binfmt-misc.html

[2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/binfmt_elf....

> The original less-than check was deemed incorrect

It was only deemed incorrect because of an information leak. Not because it's a valid use-case for user space to copy smaller portions of *hwrpb into user space. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/21c5977a836e399fc71...

Correct. And the combined work needs to carry the MIT license text and copyright attributions for the MIT software authors. With binary distribution it must also be overt, not hidden in some source code drop, but directly accompanying the binary.

Many people who talk about relicensing never credit the MIT developers or distribute the MIT license text. "Because it's GPL now."

I don't think that you believe that, but many developers do.

Some don't see the need for source code scans for Open Source compliance, because the license.txt says GPL, so it's GPL. Prime example is the Linux kernel. There is code under different licenses in there, but people don't even read https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING till the end ("In addition, other licenses may also apply.") and conclude it's simply GPL 2 and nothing else.

Also be aware that sublicensing is not the same as relicensing.

> Does he have something against it?

He notoriously hates GNU Emacs, yes.

https://marc.info/?m=122955159617722

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...