From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Andrews Subject: Re: segfault in VM Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:10:04 +0100 Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <40FD5FFC.6070102@nodnol.org> References: <5C5D9676-D9B5-11D8-9EE6-000A95DBAEDE@illusionary.com> <4F100298-D9D8-11D8-8111-000A95DBAEDE@illusionary.com> <52AB0739-D9E8-11D8-8111-000A95DBAEDE@illusionary.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Derek Glidden Cc: xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Derek Glidden wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2004, at 9:01 PM, Derek Glidden wrote: > >> (XEN) (file=x86_32/emulate.c, line=228) Bailing: not a -ve offset into >> 4GB segment. >> (XEN) (file=x86_32/emulate.c, line=235) !!!! DISALLOWING UNSAFE ACCESS >> !!!! > > > After pounding on that box pretty much all evening with "nosmp", I > wasn't able to make it crash, either in dom0 or a VM, like I had been > able to do in SMP mode. Which revision of the code were you running there? I'd like to give it a go... > I had some weirdness in dom0 when I woke up and checked on it this > morning - a compile had failed that shouldn't have, but there were no > log messages either from Xen or dom0, so I'm not really sure what that was. > > Tonight I'll pull the latest changes and rebuild everything, reboot it > without "nosmp" (make it SMP again) and see what happens. I've been trying various old revisions as far back as 1.1068[*] (so far), and I can't find one that doesn't blow up. My test is to run James' 'compare' script in domain0 on two large identical files of randomness, and compile various things continuously in a 2.4.26 domain1. It usually takes only a few minutes to start showing differences, and if I leave it I'll get segfaults in domain0, then (with at least one revision) a panic in domain0 and reboot. Just now I tried the latest code (post Keir's 1.1116/1.1117 csets) and I'm seeing much the same results. Hardware is a Dell 1650, single CPU, 1G RAM, aacraid controller. I've got rid of the devicemapper stuff I was running before, and domain1's root is on an ordinary disk partition. Chris. [*] is this a suitably precise way of specifying revision? 1.1068 is based on the list from: http://xen.bkbits.net:8080/xeno-unstable.bk/ChangeSet@-2w?nav=index.html ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click