Work flow to build recovery-image

[Yunlian Jiang]

Hi,
I want to test the upgrade version of busybox, so I want to see
whether it breaks
recovery-image. I found that I could not build a good recovery image
even on a vanilla
checkout. What I did is

./build_packages --board falco
./build_image --board falco
./mod_image_for_recovery.sh --board falco
cros flash --board falco usb://
../build/images/falco/latest/recovery_image.bin

When I insert the usb drive to the chromebook, it says the usb
does not contain recovery
image. I then test the offical recovery-image I got by running
linux_recovery.sh and that image
works.

Is there anything wrong about the process to build recovery image?

Thanks

[Vincent Palatin]

it is not signed by the key expected by the chromebook firmware.

 

[Richard Barnette]

On 5/22/15 3:36 PM, 'Yunlian Jiang' via Chromium OS dev wrote:
> Hi,
> I want to test the upgrade version of busybox, so I want to see
> whether it breaks
> recovery-image. I found that I could not build a good recovery image
> even on a vanilla
> checkout. What I did is
>
> ./build_packages --board falco
> ./build_image --board falco
> ./mod_image_for_recovery.sh --board falco
> cros flash --board falco usb://
> ../build/images/falco/latest/recovery_image.bin
>

That's the right process to build an image for testing.

> When I insert the usb drive to the chromebook, it says the usb
> does not contain recovery
> image. I then test the offical recovery-image I got by running
> linux_recovery.sh and that image
> works.
>

If you boot in recovery mode, the firmware will insist that
the image on USB be signed by Google. An image built with
the procedure above won't have a valid signature, and so the
firmware will reject it.

To test, you need to boot your device in dev mode, and then
boot from USB with ctrl-U.

> Is there anything wrong about the process to build recovery image?
>
> Thanks
>

--jrb