[PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Jean Guyader]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 175 bytes --]


ioemu-remote: The device model needs to write in the ACPI tables when it 
wakes up from S3 state.

Signed-off-by: Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com>

-- 
Jean Guyader

[-- Attachment #2: s3_state_write_e820.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 652 bytes --]

diff --git a/hw/xen_platform.c b/hw/xen_platform.c
index 430e603..06f6edb 100644
--- a/hw/xen_platform.c
+++ b/hw/xen_platform.c
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static void xen_platform_ioport_writeb(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val
     case 0: /* Platform flags */ {
         hvmmem_type_t mem_type = (val & PFFLAG_ROM_LOCK) ?
             HVMMEM_ram_ro : HVMMEM_ram_rw;
-        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x40))
+        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x20))
             fprintf(logfile,"xen_platform: unable to change ro/rw "
                     "state of ROM memory area!\n");
         else

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Ian Jackson]

Jean Guyader writes ("[PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up"):
> ioemu-remote: The device model needs to write in the ACPI tables when it 
> wakes up from S3 state.

I've applied this but I have to say these magic numbers
> -        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x40))
> +        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x20))
are pretty unpleasant!  Are they directly derived from addresses
specified in ACPI ?  I haven't looked ...

Ian.

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Trolle Selander]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1137 bytes --]

Don't leave the main rombios unprotected. I also added a comment to explain
the "magic numbers", since their meaning is perhaps not as obvious as I
thought, in particular now that we're no longer blanket-protecting the
entire firmware area anymore.

/ Trolle

Signed-off-by: Trolle Selander <trolle.selander@eu.citrix.com
<mailto:trolle.selander@eu.citrix.com> <trolle.selander@eu.citrix.com>

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
wrote:

> Jean Guyader writes ("[PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up"):
> > ioemu-remote: The device model needs to write in the ACPI tables when it
> > wakes up from S3 state.
>
> I've applied this but I have to say these magic numbers
> > -        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x40))
> > +        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x20))
> are pretty unpleasant!  Are they directly derived from addresses
> specified in ACPI ?  I haven't looked ...
>
> Ian.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1901 bytes --]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: restore_rombios_protect.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch; name=restore_rombios_protect.patch, Size: 902 bytes --]

diff -uNr a/hw/xen_platform.c b/hw/xen_platform.c
--- a/hw/xen_platform.c	2008-07-24 10:55:59.960084000 +0100
+++ b/hw/xen_platform.c	2008-07-24 11:19:50.310084450 +0100
@@ -59,7 +59,10 @@
     case 0: /* Platform flags */ {
         hvmmem_type_t mem_type = (val & PFFLAG_ROM_LOCK) ?
             HVMMEM_ram_ro : HVMMEM_ram_rw;
-        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x40))
+        /* The numbers passed below are pfns and page counts representing the memory ranges:
+           0xc0000 - 0xdffff - VGABIOS and option ROMS (extboot, ethboot, etc)
+           0xf0000 - 0xfffff - the main ROMBIOS */
+        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x20) || xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xf0, 0x10))
             fprintf(logfile,"xen_platform: unable to change ro/rw "
                     "state of ROM memory area!\n");
         else

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Ian Jackson]

Trolle Selander writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up"):
> Don't leave the main rombios unprotected. I also added a comment to explain
> the "magic numbers", since their meaning is perhaps not as obvious as I
> thought, in particular now that we're no longer blanket-protecting the
> entire firmware area anymore.

Thanks ...

> -    if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x40))
> +    /* [These numbers] are pfns and page counts [for] the memory ranges:
> +       0xc0000 - 0xdffff - VGABIOS and option ROMS (extboot, ethboot, etc)
> +       0xf0000 - 0xfffff - the main ROMBIOS */
> +    if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x20)
> +     || xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xf0, 0x10))
>              fprintf(logfile,"xen_platform: unable to change ro/rw "
>                      "state of ROM memory area!\n");
>          else

... so 0xe0000..0xeffff are the ACPI tables that Jean was wanting the
guest to be able to modify.  So I should say
  +       0xe0000 - 0xeffff - ACPI tables (guest writes on S3 wakeup)
or some such ?

Forgive my ignorance ...

Ian.

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Jean Guyader]

I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But 
obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame 
0xf1. I still don't figure out why.


Trolle Selander wrote:
> Don't leave the main rombios unprotected. I also added a comment to 
> explain the "magic numbers", since their meaning is perhaps not as 
> obvious as I thought, in particular now that we're no longer 
> blanket-protecting the entire firmware area anymore.
> 
> / Trolle
> 
> Signed-off-by: Trolle Selander <trolle.selander@eu.citrix.com 
> <mailto:trolle.selander@eu.citrix.com> 
> <mailto:trolle.selander@eu.citrix.com>
> 
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com 
> <mailto:Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Jean Guyader writes ("[PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up"):
>      > ioemu-remote: The device model needs to write in the ACPI tables
>     when it
>      > wakes up from S3 state.
> 
>     I've applied this but I have to say these magic numbers
>      > -        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type,
>     0xc0, 0x40))
>      > +        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type,
>     0xc0, 0x20))
>     are pretty unpleasant!  Are they directly derived from addresses
>     specified in ACPI ?  I haven't looked ...
> 
>     Ian.
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Xen-devel mailing list
>     Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com <mailto:Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
>     http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 


-- 
Jean Guyader

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Jean Guyader]

Jean Guyader wrote:
> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But 
> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame 
> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
> 
> 

The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
(rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
as rw just because of that.
Any suggestions ?

-- 
Jean Guyader

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> Jean Guyader wrote:
>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
> 
> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
> as rw just because of that.
> Any suggestions ?

In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct fix
is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
xen-unstable.hg:18120.

 -- Keir

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Trolle Selander]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1193 bytes --]

Was this s3_resume_flag the _only_ thing that needed to be in r/w space, or
was that just the only thing in the rombios range? That is - should we
revert to the original code, or to the revised version i sent earlier today
that protected the actual ROMs but left a r/w gap covering the unused areas
and the SMBIOS- & ACPI- tables?

-- Trolle

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
wrote:

> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > Jean Guyader wrote:
> >> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
> >> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
> >> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
> >
> > The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
> > (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
> > rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
> > as rw just because of that.
> > Any suggestions ?
>
> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct
> fix
> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>
>  -- Keir
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1715 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1407 bytes --]

I think Jean's original and only problem was with the s3_resume_flag.

 -- Keir

On 24/7/08 13:54, "Trolle Selander" <trolle.selander@gmail.com> wrote:

> Was this s3_resume_flag the _only_ thing that needed to be in r/w space, or
> was that just the only thing in the rombios range? That is - should we revert
> to the original code, or to the revised version i sent earlier today that
> protected the actual ROMs but left a r/w gap covering the unused areas and the
> SMBIOS- & ACPI- tables?
> 
> -- Trolle
> 
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
> wrote:
>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> > Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>> >> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>> >> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
>>>> >> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>> >
>>> > The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
>>> > (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>> > rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
>>> > as rw just because of that.
>>> > Any suggestions ?
>> 
>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct fix
>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> 
> 
> 



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2208 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

RE: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Ke, Liping]

Hi, Selander and Jean

Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem still exist.

Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop, other one is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think this might be the same problem Guyader meet before?

I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look? 

Thanks& Regards,
Criping

-----Original Message-----
From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> Jean Guyader wrote:
>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
> 
> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
> as rw just because of that.
> Any suggestions ?

In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct fix
is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
xen-unstable.hg:18120.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

Hi,

I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I removed all writes
to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are happening then the
logging at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to the Xen
console. You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add
guest_loglvl=all as a Xen boot parameter.

The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash important private (and
in some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
framebuffer, at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined
format; other parts are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all
we care about is that we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra
8-bit variable within it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.

 -- Keir

On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi, Selander and Jean
> 
> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem still
> exist.
> 
> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop, other one
> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think this
> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
> 
> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look?
> 
> Thanks& Regards,
> Criping
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> 
>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>> 
>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
>> as rw just because of that.
>> Any suggestions ?
> 
> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct fix
> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain ACPI tables do
need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). Secondly, when the BIOS
re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial boot but not on
warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.

 -- Keir

On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I removed all writes
> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are happening then the logging
> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to the Xen console.
> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add guest_loglvl=all as a
> Xen boot parameter.
> 
> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash important private (and in
> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA framebuffer,
> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined format; other parts
> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we care about is that
> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 8-bit variable within
> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>> 
>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem still
>> exist.
>> 
>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop, other one
>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think this
>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>> 
>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look?
>> 
>> Thanks& Regards,
>> Criping
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>> 
>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>> 
>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
>>> as rw just because of that.
>>> Any suggestions ?
>> 
>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct fix
>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

RE: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Ke, Liping]

Hi, Keir
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Regards,
Criping
-----Original Message-----
From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] 
Sent: 2008年7月29日 18:26
To: Ke, Liping; Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander; Xu, Jiajun
Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain ACPI tables do
need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). Secondly, when the BIOS
re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial boot but not on
warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.

 -- Keir

On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I removed all writes
> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are happening then the logging
> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to the Xen console.
> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add guest_loglvl=all as a
> Xen boot parameter.
> 
> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash important private (and in
> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA framebuffer,
> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined format; other parts
> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we care about is that
> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 8-bit variable within
> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>> 
>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem still
>> exist.
>> 
>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop, other one
>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think this
>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>> 
>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look?
>> 
>> Thanks& Regards,
>> Criping
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>> 
>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>> 
>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
>>> as rw just because of that.
>>> Any suggestions ?
>> 
>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct fix
>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Trolle Selander]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3712 bytes --]

I don't think there is such a thing as "warm reset" with a Xen HVM - one of
the self-modifying functrions at first boot is clobber_entry_point() which
overwrites the bios entry with a jump to machine_reset. The patch I posted
earlier on this issue should take of the acpi table issue, but maybe we want
to tighten the "writable window" to be as narrow as possible?

-- Trolle

2008/7/29 Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>

> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain ACPI tables do
> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). Secondly, when the BIOS
> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial boot but not on
> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>
>  -- Keir
>
> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I removed all
> writes
> > to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are happening then the
> logging
> > at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to the Xen
> console.
> > You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add guest_loglvl=all as
> a
> > Xen boot parameter.
> >
> > The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash important private
> (and in
> > some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
> framebuffer,
> > at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined format; other
> parts
> > are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we care about is
> that
> > we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 8-bit variable
> within
> > it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
> >
> >  -- Keir
> >
> > On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Selander and Jean
> >>
> >> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
> >> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
> >> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem
> still
> >> exist.
> >>
> >> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop,
> other one
> >> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think
> this
> >> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
> >>
> >> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look?
> >>
> >> Thanks& Regards,
> >> Criping
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> >> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
> >> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
> >> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
> >> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> >>
> >> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jean Guyader wrote:
> >>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
> >>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this
> frame
> >>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
> >>>
> >>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
> >>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
> >>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
> >>> as rw just because of that.
> >>> Any suggestions ?
> >>
> >> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct
> fix
> >> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix
> as
> >> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
> >>
> >>  -- Keir
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Xen-devel mailing list
> >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5156 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

RE: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Ke, Liping]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4438 bytes --]

Hi, Selander

Today I had a rough try on Guyader's patch, change xen_platform.c
xen_platform_ioport_writeb ->xc_hvm_set_mem_type last param from 0x40 to 0x20. Seems not working if I am not wrong.

The patch you mentioned here is the one below?
+        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x20) || xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xf0, 0x10))
             fprintf(logfile,"xen_platform: unable to change ro/rw "
                     "state of ROM memory area!\n");
         else



Regards,
Criping
________________________________________
From: Trolle Selander [mailto:trolle.selander@gmail.com] 
Sent: 2008年7月29日 18:41
To: Keir Fraser
Cc: Ke, Liping; Jean Guyader; Xu, Jiajun; xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

I don't think there is such a thing as "warm reset" with a Xen HVM - one of the self-modifying functrions at first boot is clobber_entry_point() which overwrites the bios entry with a jump to machine_reset. The patch I posted earlier on this issue should take of the acpi table issue, but maybe we want to tighten the "writable window" to be as narrow as possible?

-- Trolle
2008/7/29 Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain ACPI tables do
need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). Secondly, when the BIOS
re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial boot but not on
warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.

 -- Keir

On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I removed all writes
> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are happening then the logging
> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to the Xen console.
> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add guest_loglvl=all as a
> Xen boot parameter.
>
> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash important private (and in
> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA framebuffer,
> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined format; other parts
> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we care about is that
> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 8-bit variable within
> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>
>  -- Keir
>
> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>
>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem still
>> exist.
>>
>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop, other one
>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think this
>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>
>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look?
>>
>> Thanks& Regards,
>> Criping
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>>
>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>
>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
>>> as rw just because of that.
>>> Any suggestions ?
>>
>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct fix
>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>
>>  -- Keir
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

Be sure you are building the ioemu you think you are. By default we now
build in directory tools/ioemu-remote, which is a clone of an out-of-tree
git repository.

 -- Keir

On 29/7/08 12:22, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi, Selander
> 
> Today I had a rough try on Guyader's patch, change xen_platform.c
> xen_platform_ioport_writeb ->xc_hvm_set_mem_type last param from 0x40 to 0x20.
> Seems not working if I am not wrong.
> 
> The patch you mentioned here is the one below?
> +        if (xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xc0, 0x20) ||
> xc_hvm_set_mem_type(xc_handle, domid, mem_type, 0xf0, 0x10))
>              fprintf(logfile,"xen_platform: unable to change ro/rw "
>                      "state of ROM memory area!\n");
>          else
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Criping
> ________________________________________
> From: Trolle Selander [mailto:trolle.selander@gmail.com]
> Sent: 2008年7月29日 18:41
> To: Keir Fraser
> Cc: Ke, Liping; Jean Guyader; Xu, Jiajun; xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> I don't think there is such a thing as "warm reset" with a Xen HVM - one of
> the self-modifying functrions at first boot is clobber_entry_point() which
> overwrites the bios entry with a jump to machine_reset. The patch I posted
> earlier on this issue should take of the acpi table issue, but maybe we want
> to tighten the "writable window" to be as narrow as possible?
> 
> -- Trolle
> 2008/7/29 Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain ACPI tables do
> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). Secondly, when the BIOS
> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial boot but not on
> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
> 
> ?-- Keir
> 
> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I removed all writes
>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are happening then the logging
>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to the Xen console.
>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add guest_loglvl=all as a
>> Xen boot parameter.
>> 
>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash important private (and in
>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>> framebuffer,
>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined format; other
>> parts
>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we care about is
>> that
>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 8-bit variable within
>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>> 
>> ?-- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>> 
>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem
>>> still
>>> exist.
>>> 
>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop, other
>>> one
>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think this
>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>> 
>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look?
>>> 
>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>> Criping
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>>> 
>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>> 
>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>> 
>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct fix
>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>> 
>>> ?-- Keir
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4180 bytes --]

Yes, good point, but yet the POST still happens. :-) I wonder why...

 -- Keir

On 29/7/08 11:40, "Trolle Selander" <trolle.selander@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think there is such a thing as "warm reset" with a Xen HVM - one of
> the self-modifying functrions at first boot is clobber_entry_point() which
> overwrites the bios entry with a jump to machine_reset. The patch I posted
> earlier on this issue should take of the acpi table issue, but maybe we want
> to tighten the "writable window" to be as narrow as possible?
> 
> -- Trolle
> 
> 2008/7/29 Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain ACPI tables do
>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). Secondly, when the BIOS
>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial boot but not on
>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I removed all
>>> writes
>>> > to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are happening then the
>>> logging
>>> > at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to the Xen
>>> console.
>>> > You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add guest_loglvl=all as
a
>>> > Xen boot parameter.
>>> >
>>> > The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash important private (and
>>> in
>>> > some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>> framebuffer,
>>> > at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined format; other
>>> parts
>>> > are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we care about is
>>> that
>>> > we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 8-bit variable
>>> within
>>> > it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>> >
>>> >  -- Keir
>>> >
>>> > On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke <http://liping.ke> @intel.com
>>> <http://intel.com> > wrote:
>>> >
>>>> >> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>> >> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>> >> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem
>>>> still
>>>> >> exist.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop,
>>>> other one
>>>> >> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think
>>>> this
>>>> >> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks& Regards,
>>>> >> Criping
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>> >> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
>>>> >> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>> >> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>> >> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>> >>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef.
But
>>>>>> >>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this
>>>>>> frame
>>>>>> >>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
>>>>> >>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>> >>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the
>>>>> rombios
>>>>> >>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>> >>> Any suggestions ?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct
>>>> fix
>>>> >> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix
as
>>>> >> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  -- Keir
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>> >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>> >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
>> 
> 
> 



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5512 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4581 bytes --]

Ah, S3 is special-cased in machine_reset(). Nice.

 -- Keir

On 29/7/08 12:50, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> Yes, good point, but yet the POST still happens. :-) I wonder why...
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 29/7/08 11:40, "Trolle Selander" <trolle.selander@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I don't think there is such a thing as "warm reset" with a Xen HVM - one of
>> the self-modifying functrions at first boot is clobber_entry_point() which
>> overwrites the bios entry with a jump to machine_reset. The patch I posted
>> earlier on this issue should take of the acpi table issue, but maybe we want
>> to tighten the "writable window" to be as narrow as possible?
>> 
>> -- Trolle
>> 
>> 2008/7/29 Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
>>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain ACPI tables do
>>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). Secondly, when the BIOS
>>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial boot but not on
>>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I removed all
>>>> writes
>>>> > to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are happening then the
>>>> logging
>>>> > at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to the Xen
>>>> console.
>>>> > You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add guest_loglvl=all as
a
>>>> > Xen boot parameter.
>>>> >
>>>> > The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash important private
>>>> (and in
>>>> > some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>>> framebuffer,
>>>> > at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined format; other
>>>> parts
>>>> > are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we care about is
>>>> that
>>>> > we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 8-bit variable
>>>> within
>>>> > it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>>> >
>>>> >  -- Keir
>>>> >
>>>> > On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke <http://liping.ke> @intel.com
>>>> <http://intel.com> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>>> >> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>>> >> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>>> >> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem
>>>>> still
>>>>> >> exist.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop,
>>>>> other one
>>>>> >> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think
>>>>> this
>>>>> >> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Thanks& Regards,
>>>>> >> Criping
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> >> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>>> >> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
>>>>> >> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>>> >> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>>> >> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>>> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake
up
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef.
But
>>>>>>> >>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this
>>>>>>> frame
>>>>>>> >>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
>>>>>> >>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>>> >>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the
>>>>>> rombios
>>>>>> >>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>>> >>> Any suggestions ?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The
>>>>> correct fix
>>>>> >> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix
as
>>>>> >> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>  -- Keir
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>> >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>>> >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6261 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume is still not
working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)

Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not good. If the
OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in flat protected
mode?

 -- Keir

On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain ACPI tables do
> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). Secondly, when the BIOS
> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial boot but not on
> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I removed all writes
>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are happening then the logging
>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to the Xen console.
>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add guest_loglvl=all as a
>> Xen boot parameter.
>> 
>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash important private (and in
>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>> framebuffer,
>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined format; other
>> parts
>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we care about is
>> that
>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 8-bit variable within
>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>> 
>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem
>>> still
>>> exist.
>>> 
>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop, other
>>> one
>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think this
>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>> 
>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look?
>>> 
>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>> Criping
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>>> 
>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>> 
>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>> 
>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct fix
>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

RE: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Ke, Liping]

Hi, Keir

Sure. I am looking on it:)
Just got someinfo, according to the ACPI spec, when we are using x_firmware_waking_vector, we should wake up from protect mode. Since we now resume back from real mode, so we'd better use firmware_waking_vector.

Thanks a lot!
Criping


-----Original Message-----
From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] 
Sent: 2008年7月29日 23:12
To: Ke, Liping; Xu, Jiajun
Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume is still not
working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)

Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not good. If the
OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in flat protected
mode?

 -- Keir

On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain ACPI tables do
> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). Secondly, when the BIOS
> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial boot but not on
> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I removed all writes
>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are happening then the logging
>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to the Xen console.
>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add guest_loglvl=all as a
>> Xen boot parameter.
>> 
>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash important private (and in
>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>> framebuffer,
>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined format; other
>> parts
>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we care about is
>> that
>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 8-bit variable within
>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>> 
>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set ro-attributes, problem
>>> still
>>> exist.
>>> 
>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in default_idle loop, other
>>> one
>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. So I think this
>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>> 
>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to have a look?
>>> 
>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>> Criping
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>>> 
>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to write on this frame
>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>> 
>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags s3_resume_flag
>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages of the rombios
>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>> 
>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be reverted. The correct fix
>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have committed this fix as
>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

RE: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Tian, Kevin]

Liping, it's not guest BIOS to choose which instead should simply
follow ACPI spec, i.e, if OSPM fills value in x_firmware field, then 
guest BIOS picks that value as wakeup vector in a flat protect mode.
Else, if OSPM fills value in legacy firmware field, guest BIOS then
resumes to given address in real mode.

It's the OSPM to decide which field to be used, according to whether
its wakeup vector is developed as real mode code. Then it's not 'us'
to decide. :-)

Commodity OSes are all using real mode wakeup vector by far. But
there's a known bug in Linux kernel where, whether to use x_firmware
field is incorrectly counted by its initial value. Normally BIOS will fill
zero in that field which avoids Linux to use xfirmware field. If guest
BIOS incorrectly puts some value in that field, guest Linux will choose
xfirmware field although it only has real mode wakeup vector. But
this is a guest bug.

Thanks,
Kevin


>From: Ke, Liping
>Sent: 2008年7月30日 10:51
>
>Hi, Keir
>
>Sure. I am looking on it:)
>Just got someinfo, according to the ACPI spec, when we are 
>using x_firmware_waking_vector, we should wake up from protect 
>mode. Since we now resume back from real mode, so we'd better 
>use firmware_waking_vector.
>
>Thanks a lot!
>Criping
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] 
>Sent: 2008年7月29日 23:12
>To: Ke, Liping; Xu, Jiajun
>Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 
>state wake up
>
>I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume 
>is still not
>working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
>repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)
>
>Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not 
>good. If the
>OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in 
>flat protected
>mode?
>
> -- Keir
>
>On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain 
>ACPI tables do
>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). 
>Secondly, when the BIOS
>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial 
>boot but not on
>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I 
>removed all writes
>>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are 
>happening then the logging
>>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to 
>the Xen console.
>>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add 
>guest_loglvl=all as a
>>> Xen boot parameter.
>>> 
>>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash 
>important private (and in
>>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>> framebuffer,
>>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined 
>format; other
>>> parts
>>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we 
>care about is
>>> that
>>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 
>8-bit variable within
>>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>> 
>>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set 
>ro-attributes, problem
>>>> still
>>>> exist.
>>>> 
>>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in 
>default_idle loop, other
>>>> one
>>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. 
>So I think this
>>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>> 
>>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to 
>have a look?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>>> Criping
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf 
>Of Keir Fraser
>>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 
>state wake up
>>>> 
>>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" 
><jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 
>0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to 
>write on this frame
>>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags 
>s3_resume_flag
>>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages 
>of the rombios
>>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>>> 
>>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be 
>reverted. The correct fix
>>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have 
>committed this fix as
>>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>> 
>>>>  -- Keir
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

RE: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Ke, Liping]

Hi, Kevin
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Now I understand it :)
Then most of guests with correct initial value should use legacy wakeup vector. The guests I have tested should be so.

Strange thing is that with top of tree, when do resume, it will do reset, mostly caused by not getting wakeup vector. I will dig into the reason.

Thanks& Regards,
Criping

-----Original Message-----
From: Tian, Kevin 
Sent: 2008年7月30日 11:09
To: Ke, Liping; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

Liping, it's not guest BIOS to choose which instead should simply
follow ACPI spec, i.e, if OSPM fills value in x_firmware field, then 
guest BIOS picks that value as wakeup vector in a flat protect mode.
Else, if OSPM fills value in legacy firmware field, guest BIOS then
resumes to given address in real mode.

It's the OSPM to decide which field to be used, according to whether
its wakeup vector is developed as real mode code. Then it's not 'us'
to decide. :-)

Commodity OSes are all using real mode wakeup vector by far. But
there's a known bug in Linux kernel where, whether to use x_firmware
field is incorrectly counted by its initial value. Normally BIOS will fill
zero in that field which avoids Linux to use xfirmware field. If guest
BIOS incorrectly puts some value in that field, guest Linux will choose
xfirmware field although it only has real mode wakeup vector. But
this is a guest bug.

Thanks,
Kevin


>From: Ke, Liping
>Sent: 2008年7月30日 10:51
>
>Hi, Keir
>
>Sure. I am looking on it:)
>Just got someinfo, according to the ACPI spec, when we are 
>using x_firmware_waking_vector, we should wake up from protect 
>mode. Since we now resume back from real mode, so we'd better 
>use firmware_waking_vector.
>
>Thanks a lot!
>Criping
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] 
>Sent: 2008年7月29日 23:12
>To: Ke, Liping; Xu, Jiajun
>Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 
>state wake up
>
>I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume 
>is still not
>working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
>repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)
>
>Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not 
>good. If the
>OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in 
>flat protected
>mode?
>
> -- Keir
>
>On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain 
>ACPI tables do
>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). 
>Secondly, when the BIOS
>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial 
>boot but not on
>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I 
>removed all writes
>>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are 
>happening then the logging
>>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to 
>the Xen console.
>>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add 
>guest_loglvl=all as a
>>> Xen boot parameter.
>>> 
>>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash 
>important private (and in
>>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>> framebuffer,
>>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined 
>format; other
>>> parts
>>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we 
>care about is
>>> that
>>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 
>8-bit variable within
>>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>> 
>>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set 
>ro-attributes, problem
>>>> still
>>>> exist.
>>>> 
>>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in 
>default_idle loop, other
>>>> one
>>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. 
>So I think this
>>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>> 
>>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to 
>have a look?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>>> Criping
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf 
>Of Keir Fraser
>>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 
>state wake up
>>>> 
>>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" 
><jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 
>0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to 
>write on this frame
>>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags 
>s3_resume_flag
>>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages 
>of the rombios
>>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>>> 
>>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be 
>reverted. The correct fix
>>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have 
>committed this fix as
>>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>> 
>>>>  -- Keir
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

RE: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Ke, Liping]

Hi, all
Just found:
When doing get_s3_waking_vector(rombios.c)->upcall(32bitgateway.c)-> switch_to_protmode-> call eax (I add a deadloop in get_s3_wakeing_vector @ beginning, so I think first instruction will fail@call eax) , it will meet triple fault with below information:

(XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
(XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
(XEN)         reason=00000002(trip fault) qualification=00000000 

Seems mostly caused by protect mode execution environment after switching to protect mode. I dump both normal and abnormal vmcs. Could anybody help to identify below information:
1. Whether gdtr/ldtr selector/base/attr could be 0/0/0x93 in protect mode
2. gs/fs limit should be 0xfffffffff instead of 0xffff in protect mode?
3. cr0 and cr4 bit such as PAE/PSE makes different? I guess No?
4. Guest EFER now should be 0. It is correct when switching to protect mode?

Any input is warmly welcome, really not familiar with asm code in 32bitgateway -:)
Thanks a lot!
Criping

Triple fault point vmcs: 
(XEN) >>> Domain 1 <<<
(XEN) 	VCPU 0
(XEN) *** Guest State ***
(XEN) CR0: actual=0x0000000080010031, shadow=0x0000000000000011, gh_mask=fffffff
fffffffff
(XEN) CR4: actual=0x0000000000002020, shadow=0x0000000000000000, gh_mask=fffffff
fffffffff
(XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
(XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
(XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
(XEN) RSP = 0x000000000000ffe8 (0x000000000000ffe8)  RIP = 0x0000000000000003 (0
x0000000000000003)
(XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000010082 (0x0000000000010082)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
(XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
(XEN) CS: sel=0x0008, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) DS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) SS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) ES: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) GS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000001f, base=0x00000000000fa5f0
(XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00082, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) TR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
(XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
(XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
(XEN) *** Host State ***
(XEN) RSP = 0xffff83007d3f7fa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
(XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e060
(XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c80
(XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff83007c69c080
(XEN) CR0=0000000080050033 CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
(XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff83007d3f7fd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
(XEN) *** Control State ***
(XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
(XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
(XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044000
(XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
(XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
(XEN)         reason=00000002 qualification=00000000
(XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
(XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
(XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
(XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
(XEN) **************************************


Normal vmcs
(XEN) 	VCPU 0
(XEN) *** Guest State ***
(XEN) CR0: actual=0x000000008005003b, shadow=0x0000000080050033, gh_mask=fffffff
fffffffff
(XEN) CR4: actual=0x00000000000026f0, shadow=0x00000000000006f0, gh_mask=fffffff
fffffffff
(XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
(XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
(XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
(XEN) RSP = 0x00000000f3a7de9c (0x00000000f3a7de9c)  RIP = 0x00000000c0506769 (0
x00000000c050676b)
(XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000000046 (0x0000000000000046)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
(XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
(XEN) CS: sel=0x0060, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) DS: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) SS: sel=0x0068, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) ES: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00c00, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) GS: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00df3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x00000000b7f058d0
(XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000000ff, base=0x00000000c1810000
(XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00082, limit=0x00000027, base=0x00000000c078b020
(XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000007ff, base=0x00000000c06e0000
(XEN) TR: sel=0x0080, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x00002073, base=0x00000000c1807100
(XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
(XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
(XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
(XEN) *** Host State ***
(XEN) RSP = 0xffff828c8023ffa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
(XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e040
(XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c00
(XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff828c80278500
(XEN) CR0=000000008005003b CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
(XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff828c8023ffd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
(XEN) *** Control State ***
(XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
(XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
(XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044080
(XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
(XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000000 ilen=00000000
(XEN)         reason=0000001e qualification=1f440001
(XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
(XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
(XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
(XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
(XEN) **************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Ke, Liping
Sent: 2008年7月30日 12:49
To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

Hi, Kevin
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Now I understand it :)
Then most of guests with correct initial value should use legacy wakeup vector. The guests I have tested should be so.

Strange thing is that with top of tree, when do resume, it will do reset, mostly caused by not getting wakeup vector. I will dig into the reason.

Thanks& Regards,
Criping

-----Original Message-----
From: Tian, Kevin 
Sent: 2008年7月30日 11:09
To: Ke, Liping; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

Liping, it's not guest BIOS to choose which instead should simply
follow ACPI spec, i.e, if OSPM fills value in x_firmware field, then 
guest BIOS picks that value as wakeup vector in a flat protect mode.
Else, if OSPM fills value in legacy firmware field, guest BIOS then
resumes to given address in real mode.

It's the OSPM to decide which field to be used, according to whether
its wakeup vector is developed as real mode code. Then it's not 'us'
to decide. :-)

Commodity OSes are all using real mode wakeup vector by far. But
there's a known bug in Linux kernel where, whether to use x_firmware
field is incorrectly counted by its initial value. Normally BIOS will fill
zero in that field which avoids Linux to use xfirmware field. If guest
BIOS incorrectly puts some value in that field, guest Linux will choose
xfirmware field although it only has real mode wakeup vector. But
this is a guest bug.

Thanks,
Kevin


>From: Ke, Liping
>Sent: 2008年7月30日 10:51
>
>Hi, Keir
>
>Sure. I am looking on it:)
>Just got someinfo, according to the ACPI spec, when we are 
>using x_firmware_waking_vector, we should wake up from protect 
>mode. Since we now resume back from real mode, so we'd better 
>use firmware_waking_vector.
>
>Thanks a lot!
>Criping
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] 
>Sent: 2008年7月29日 23:12
>To: Ke, Liping; Xu, Jiajun
>Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 
>state wake up
>
>I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume 
>is still not
>working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
>repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)
>
>Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not 
>good. If the
>OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in 
>flat protected
>mode?
>
> -- Keir
>
>On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain 
>ACPI tables do
>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). 
>Secondly, when the BIOS
>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial 
>boot but not on
>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I 
>removed all writes
>>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are 
>happening then the logging
>>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to 
>the Xen console.
>>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add 
>guest_loglvl=all as a
>>> Xen boot parameter.
>>> 
>>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash 
>important private (and in
>>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>> framebuffer,
>>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined 
>format; other
>>> parts
>>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we 
>care about is
>>> that
>>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 
>8-bit variable within
>>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>> 
>>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set 
>ro-attributes, problem
>>>> still
>>>> exist.
>>>> 
>>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in 
>default_idle loop, other
>>>> one
>>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. 
>So I think this
>>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>> 
>>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to 
>have a look?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>>> Criping
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf 
>Of Keir Fraser
>>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 
>state wake up
>>>> 
>>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" 
><jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 
>0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to 
>write on this frame
>>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags 
>s3_resume_flag
>>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages 
>of the rombios
>>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>>> 
>>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be 
>reverted. The correct fix
>>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have 
>committed this fix as
>>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>> 
>>>>  -- Keir
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

RE: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Ke, Liping]

Btw: need TR register be set when switching to protect mode?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ke, Liping 
Sent: 2008年7月30日 19:44
To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke; Jiang, Yunhong
Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

Hi, all
Just found:
When doing get_s3_waking_vector(rombios.c)->upcall(32bitgateway.c)-> switch_to_protmode-> call eax (I add a deadloop in get_s3_wakeing_vector @ beginning, so I think first instruction will fail@call eax) , it will meet triple fault with below information:


(XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
(XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
(XEN)         reason=00000002(trip fault) qualification=00000000 

Seems mostly caused by protect mode execution environment after switching to protect mode. I dump both normal and abnormal vmcs. Could anybody help to identify below information:
1. Whether gdtr/ldtr selector/base/attr could be 0/0/0x93 in protect mode
2. gs/fs limit should be 0xfffffffff instead of 0xffff in protect mode?
3. cr0 and cr4 bit such as PAE/PSE makes different? I guess No?
4. Guest EFER now should be 0. It is correct when switching to protect mode?

Any input is warmly welcome, really not familiar with asm code in 32bitgateway -:)
Thanks a lot!
Criping

Triple fault point vmcs: 
(XEN) >>> Domain 1 <<<
(XEN) 	VCPU 0
(XEN) *** Guest State ***
(XEN) CR0: actual=0x0000000080010031, shadow=0x0000000000000011, gh_mask=fffffff
fffffffff
(XEN) CR4: actual=0x0000000000002020, shadow=0x0000000000000000, gh_mask=fffffff
fffffffff
(XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
(XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
(XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
(XEN) RSP = 0x000000000000ffe8 (0x000000000000ffe8)  RIP = 0x0000000000000003 (0
x0000000000000003)
(XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000010082 (0x0000000000010082)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
(XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
(XEN) CS: sel=0x0008, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) DS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) SS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) ES: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) GS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000001f, base=0x00000000000fa5f0
(XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00082, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) TR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
(XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
(XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
(XEN) *** Host State ***
(XEN) RSP = 0xffff83007d3f7fa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
(XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e060
(XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c80
(XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff83007c69c080
(XEN) CR0=0000000080050033 CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
(XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff83007d3f7fd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
(XEN) *** Control State ***
(XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
(XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
(XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044000
(XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
(XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
(XEN)         reason=00000002 qualification=00000000
(XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
(XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
(XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
(XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
(XEN) **************************************


Normal vmcs
(XEN) 	VCPU 0
(XEN) *** Guest State ***
(XEN) CR0: actual=0x000000008005003b, shadow=0x0000000080050033, gh_mask=fffffff
fffffffff
(XEN) CR4: actual=0x00000000000026f0, shadow=0x00000000000006f0, gh_mask=fffffff
fffffffff
(XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
(XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
(XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
(XEN) RSP = 0x00000000f3a7de9c (0x00000000f3a7de9c)  RIP = 0x00000000c0506769 (0
x00000000c050676b)
(XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000000046 (0x0000000000000046)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
(XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
(XEN) CS: sel=0x0060, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) DS: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) SS: sel=0x0068, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) ES: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00c00, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
(XEN) GS: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00df3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x00000000b7f058d0
(XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000000ff, base=0x00000000c1810000
(XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00082, limit=0x00000027, base=0x00000000c078b020
(XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000007ff, base=0x00000000c06e0000
(XEN) TR: sel=0x0080, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x00002073, base=0x00000000c1807100
(XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
(XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
(XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
(XEN) *** Host State ***
(XEN) RSP = 0xffff828c8023ffa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
(XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e040
(XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c00
(XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff828c80278500
(XEN) CR0=000000008005003b CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
(XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff828c8023ffd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
(XEN) *** Control State ***
(XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
(XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
(XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044080
(XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
(XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000000 ilen=00000000
(XEN)         reason=0000001e qualification=1f440001
(XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
(XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
(XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
(XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
(XEN) **************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Ke, Liping
Sent: 2008年7月30日 12:49
To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

Hi, Kevin
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Now I understand it :)
Then most of guests with correct initial value should use legacy wakeup vector. The guests I have tested should be so.

Strange thing is that with top of tree, when do resume, it will do reset, mostly caused by not getting wakeup vector. I will dig into the reason.

Thanks& Regards,
Criping

-----Original Message-----
From: Tian, Kevin 
Sent: 2008年7月30日 11:09
To: Ke, Liping; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

Liping, it's not guest BIOS to choose which instead should simply
follow ACPI spec, i.e, if OSPM fills value in x_firmware field, then 
guest BIOS picks that value as wakeup vector in a flat protect mode.
Else, if OSPM fills value in legacy firmware field, guest BIOS then
resumes to given address in real mode.

It's the OSPM to decide which field to be used, according to whether
its wakeup vector is developed as real mode code. Then it's not 'us'
to decide. :-)

Commodity OSes are all using real mode wakeup vector by far. But
there's a known bug in Linux kernel where, whether to use x_firmware
field is incorrectly counted by its initial value. Normally BIOS will fill
zero in that field which avoids Linux to use xfirmware field. If guest
BIOS incorrectly puts some value in that field, guest Linux will choose
xfirmware field although it only has real mode wakeup vector. But
this is a guest bug.

Thanks,
Kevin


>From: Ke, Liping
>Sent: 2008年7月30日 10:51
>
>Hi, Keir
>
>Sure. I am looking on it:)
>Just got someinfo, according to the ACPI spec, when we are 
>using x_firmware_waking_vector, we should wake up from protect 
>mode. Since we now resume back from real mode, so we'd better 
>use firmware_waking_vector.
>
>Thanks a lot!
>Criping
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] 
>Sent: 2008年7月29日 23:12
>To: Ke, Liping; Xu, Jiajun
>Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 
>state wake up
>
>I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume 
>is still not
>working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
>repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)
>
>Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not 
>good. If the
>OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in 
>flat protected
>mode?
>
> -- Keir
>
>On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain 
>ACPI tables do
>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector). 
>Secondly, when the BIOS
>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial 
>boot but not on
>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>> 
>>  -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I 
>removed all writes
>>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are 
>happening then the logging
>>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to 
>the Xen console.
>>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add 
>guest_loglvl=all as a
>>> Xen boot parameter.
>>> 
>>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash 
>important private (and in
>>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>> framebuffer,
>>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined 
>format; other
>>> parts
>>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we 
>care about is
>>> that
>>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra 
>8-bit variable within
>>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>> 
>>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set 
>ro-attributes, problem
>>>> still
>>>> exist.
>>>> 
>>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in 
>default_idle loop, other
>>>> one
>>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc. 
>So I think this
>>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>> 
>>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to 
>have a look?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>>> Criping
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf 
>Of Keir Fraser
>>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 
>state wake up
>>>> 
>>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader" 
><jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep 
>0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to 
>write on this frame
>>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags 
>s3_resume_flag
>>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages 
>of the rombios
>>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>>> 
>>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be 
>reverted. The correct fix
>>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have 
>committed this fix as
>>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>> 
>>>>  -- Keir
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

That's interesting. For me, the upcall works fine and I get the correct
vector back to s3_resume(). My problems seem to occur after control has
returned to the guest OS.

 -- Keir

On 30/7/08 12:44, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi, all
> Just found:
> When doing get_s3_waking_vector(rombios.c)->upcall(32bitgateway.c)->
> switch_to_protmode-> call eax (I add a deadloop in get_s3_wakeing_vector @
> beginning, so I think first instruction will fail@call eax) , it will meet
> triple fault with below information:
> 
> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
> (XEN)         reason=00000002(trip fault) qualification=00000000
> 
> Seems mostly caused by protect mode execution environment after switching to
> protect mode. I dump both normal and abnormal vmcs. Could anybody help to
> identify below information:
> 1. Whether gdtr/ldtr selector/base/attr could be 0/0/0x93 in protect mode
> 2. gs/fs limit should be 0xfffffffff instead of 0xffff in protect mode?
> 3. cr0 and cr4 bit such as PAE/PSE makes different? I guess No?
> 4. Guest EFER now should be 0. It is correct when switching to protect mode?
> 
> Any input is warmly welcome, really not familiar with asm code in 32bitgateway
> -:)
> Thanks a lot!
> Criping
> 
> Triple fault point vmcs:
> (XEN) >>> Domain 1 <<<
> (XEN)  VCPU 0
> (XEN) *** Guest State ***
> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x0000000080010031, shadow=0x0000000000000011,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x0000000000002020, shadow=0x0000000000000000,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
> (XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
> (XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
> (XEN) RSP = 0x000000000000ffe8 (0x000000000000ffe8)  RIP = 0x0000000000000003
> (0
> x0000000000000003)
> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000010082 (0x0000000000010082)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0008, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) DS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) ES: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000001f,
> base=0x00000000000fa5f0
> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00082, limit=0x0000ffff,
> base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000ffff,
> base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
> (XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
> (XEN) *** Host State ***
> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff83007d3f7fa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e060
> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c80
> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff83007c69c080
> (XEN) CR0=0000000080050033 CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff83007d3f7fd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
> (XEN) *** Control State ***
> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044000
> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
> (XEN)         reason=00000002 qualification=00000000
> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
> (XEN) **************************************
> 
> 
> Normal vmcs
> (XEN)  VCPU 0
> (XEN) *** Guest State ***
> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x000000008005003b, shadow=0x0000000080050033,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x00000000000026f0, shadow=0x00000000000006f0,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
> (XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
> (XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
> (XEN) RSP = 0x00000000f3a7de9c (0x00000000f3a7de9c)  RIP = 0x00000000c0506769
> (0
> x00000000c050676b)
> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000000046 (0x0000000000000046)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0060, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) DS: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0068, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) ES: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00c00, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00df3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x00000000b7f058d0
> (XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000000ff,
> base=0x00000000c1810000
> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00082, limit=0x00000027,
> base=0x00000000c078b020
> (XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000007ff,
> base=0x00000000c06e0000
> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0080, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x00002073, base=0x00000000c1807100
> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
> (XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
> (XEN) *** Host State ***
> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff828c8023ffa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e040
> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c00
> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff828c80278500
> (XEN) CR0=000000008005003b CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff828c8023ffd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
> (XEN) *** Control State ***
> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044080
> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000000 ilen=00000000
> (XEN)         reason=0000001e qualification=1f440001
> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
> (XEN) **************************************
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Ke, Liping
> Sent: 2008年7月30日 12:49
> To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> Hi, Kevin
> Thanks for the detailed explanation. Now I understand it :)
> Then most of guests with correct initial value should use legacy wakeup
> vector. The guests I have tested should be so.
> 
> Strange thing is that with top of tree, when do resume, it will do reset,
> mostly caused by not getting wakeup vector. I will dig into the reason.
> 
> Thanks& Regards,
> Criping
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: 2008年7月30日 11:09
> To: Ke, Liping; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> Liping, it's not guest BIOS to choose which instead should simply
> follow ACPI spec, i.e, if OSPM fills value in x_firmware field, then
> guest BIOS picks that value as wakeup vector in a flat protect mode.
> Else, if OSPM fills value in legacy firmware field, guest BIOS then
> resumes to given address in real mode.
> 
> It's the OSPM to decide which field to be used, according to whether
> its wakeup vector is developed as real mode code. Then it's not 'us'
> to decide. :-)
> 
> Commodity OSes are all using real mode wakeup vector by far. But
> there's a known bug in Linux kernel where, whether to use x_firmware
> field is incorrectly counted by its initial value. Normally BIOS will fill
> zero in that field which avoids Linux to use xfirmware field. If guest
> BIOS incorrectly puts some value in that field, guest Linux will choose
> xfirmware field although it only has real mode wakeup vector. But
> this is a guest bug.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> 
>> From: Ke, Liping
>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 10:51
>> 
>> Hi, Keir
>> 
>> Sure. I am looking on it:)
>> Just got someinfo, according to the ACPI spec, when we are
>> using x_firmware_waking_vector, we should wake up from protect
>> mode. Since we now resume back from real mode, so we'd better
>> use firmware_waking_vector.
>> 
>> Thanks a lot!
>> Criping
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com]
>> Sent: 2008年7月29日 23:12
>> To: Ke, Liping; Xu, Jiajun
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3
>> state wake up
>> 
>> I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume
>> is still not
>> working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
>> repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)
>> 
>> Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not
>> good. If the
>> OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in
>> flat protected
>> mode?
>> 
>> -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain
>> ACPI tables do
>>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector).
>> Secondly, when the BIOS
>>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial
>> boot but not on
>>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I
>> removed all writes
>>>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are
>> happening then the logging
>>>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to
>> the Xen console.
>>>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add
>> guest_loglvl=all as a
>>>> Xen boot parameter.
>>>> 
>>>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash
>> important private (and in
>>>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>>> framebuffer,
>>>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined
>> format; other
>>>> parts
>>>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we
>> care about is
>>>> that
>>>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra
>> 8-bit variable within
>>>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>>> 
>>>>  -- Keir
>>>> 
>>>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set
>> ro-attributes, problem
>>>>> still
>>>>> exist.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in
>> default_idle loop, other
>>>>> one
>>>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc.
>> So I think this
>>>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to
>> have a look?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>>>> Criping
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf
>> Of Keir Fraser
>>>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3
>> state wake up
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader"
>> <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep
>> 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to
>> write on this frame
>>>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags
>> s3_resume_flag
>>>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages
>> of the rombios
>>>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be
>> reverted. The correct fix
>>>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have
>> committed this fix as
>>>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  -- Keir
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

No, not necessarily. Obviously some other exception or interrupt has
occurred here and lack of a valid IDT has turned it into a triple fault. It
oughtn't to be an interrupt since your RFLAGS.IF = 0. The fact that
RFLAGS.RF = 1 is perhaps interesting (could very well not be related to your
problem though).

 -- Keir

On 30/7/08 12:50, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:

> Btw: need TR register be set when switching to protect mode?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ke, Liping 
> Sent: 2008年7月30日 19:44
> To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke; Jiang, Yunhong
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> Hi, all
> Just found:
> When doing get_s3_waking_vector(rombios.c)->upcall(32bitgateway.c)->
> switch_to_protmode-> call eax (I add a deadloop in get_s3_wakeing_vector @
> beginning, so I think first instruction will fail@call eax) , it will meet
> triple fault with below information:
> 
> 
> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
> (XEN)         reason=00000002(trip fault) qualification=00000000
> 
> Seems mostly caused by protect mode execution environment after switching to
> protect mode. I dump both normal and abnormal vmcs. Could anybody help to
> identify below information:
> 1. Whether gdtr/ldtr selector/base/attr could be 0/0/0x93 in protect mode
> 2. gs/fs limit should be 0xfffffffff instead of 0xffff in protect mode?
> 3. cr0 and cr4 bit such as PAE/PSE makes different? I guess No?
> 4. Guest EFER now should be 0. It is correct when switching to protect mode?
> 
> Any input is warmly welcome, really not familiar with asm code in 32bitgateway
> -:)
> Thanks a lot!
> Criping
> 
> Triple fault point vmcs:
> (XEN) >>> Domain 1 <<<
> (XEN)  VCPU 0
> (XEN) *** Guest State ***
> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x0000000080010031, shadow=0x0000000000000011,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x0000000000002020, shadow=0x0000000000000000,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
> (XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
> (XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
> (XEN) RSP = 0x000000000000ffe8 (0x000000000000ffe8)  RIP = 0x0000000000000003
> (0
> x0000000000000003)
> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000010082 (0x0000000000010082)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0008, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) DS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) ES: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000001f,
> base=0x00000000000fa5f0
> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00082, limit=0x0000ffff,
> base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000ffff,
> base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
> (XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
> (XEN) *** Host State ***
> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff83007d3f7fa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e060
> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c80
> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff83007c69c080
> (XEN) CR0=0000000080050033 CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff83007d3f7fd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
> (XEN) *** Control State ***
> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044000
> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
> (XEN)         reason=00000002 qualification=00000000
> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
> (XEN) **************************************
> 
> 
> Normal vmcs
> (XEN)  VCPU 0
> (XEN) *** Guest State ***
> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x000000008005003b, shadow=0x0000000080050033,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x00000000000026f0, shadow=0x00000000000006f0,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
> (XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
> (XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
> (XEN) RSP = 0x00000000f3a7de9c (0x00000000f3a7de9c)  RIP = 0x00000000c0506769
> (0
> x00000000c050676b)
> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000000046 (0x0000000000000046)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0060, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) DS: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0068, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) ES: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00c00, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00df3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x00000000b7f058d0
> (XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000000ff,
> base=0x00000000c1810000
> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00082, limit=0x00000027,
> base=0x00000000c078b020
> (XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000007ff,
> base=0x00000000c06e0000
> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0080, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x00002073, base=0x00000000c1807100
> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
> (XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
> (XEN) *** Host State ***
> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff828c8023ffa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e040
> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c00
> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff828c80278500
> (XEN) CR0=000000008005003b CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff828c8023ffd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
> (XEN) *** Control State ***
> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044080
> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000000 ilen=00000000
> (XEN)         reason=0000001e qualification=1f440001
> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
> (XEN) **************************************
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Ke, Liping
> Sent: 2008年7月30日 12:49
> To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> Hi, Kevin
> Thanks for the detailed explanation. Now I understand it :)
> Then most of guests with correct initial value should use legacy wakeup
> vector. The guests I have tested should be so.
> 
> Strange thing is that with top of tree, when do resume, it will do reset,
> mostly caused by not getting wakeup vector. I will dig into the reason.
> 
> Thanks& Regards,
> Criping
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: 2008年7月30日 11:09
> To: Ke, Liping; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> Liping, it's not guest BIOS to choose which instead should simply
> follow ACPI spec, i.e, if OSPM fills value in x_firmware field, then
> guest BIOS picks that value as wakeup vector in a flat protect mode.
> Else, if OSPM fills value in legacy firmware field, guest BIOS then
> resumes to given address in real mode.
> 
> It's the OSPM to decide which field to be used, according to whether
> its wakeup vector is developed as real mode code. Then it's not 'us'
> to decide. :-)
> 
> Commodity OSes are all using real mode wakeup vector by far. But
> there's a known bug in Linux kernel where, whether to use x_firmware
> field is incorrectly counted by its initial value. Normally BIOS will fill
> zero in that field which avoids Linux to use xfirmware field. If guest
> BIOS incorrectly puts some value in that field, guest Linux will choose
> xfirmware field although it only has real mode wakeup vector. But
> this is a guest bug.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> 
>> From: Ke, Liping
>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 10:51
>> 
>> Hi, Keir
>> 
>> Sure. I am looking on it:)
>> Just got someinfo, according to the ACPI spec, when we are
>> using x_firmware_waking_vector, we should wake up from protect
>> mode. Since we now resume back from real mode, so we'd better
>> use firmware_waking_vector.
>> 
>> Thanks a lot!
>> Criping
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com]
>> Sent: 2008年7月29日 23:12
>> To: Ke, Liping; Xu, Jiajun
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3
>> state wake up
>> 
>> I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume
>> is still not
>> working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
>> repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)
>> 
>> Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not
>> good. If the
>> OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in
>> flat protected
>> mode?
>> 
>> -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain
>> ACPI tables do
>>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector).
>> Secondly, when the BIOS
>>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial
>> boot but not on
>>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I
>> removed all writes
>>>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are
>> happening then the logging
>>>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to
>> the Xen console.
>>>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add
>> guest_loglvl=all as a
>>>> Xen boot parameter.
>>>> 
>>>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash
>> important private (and in
>>>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>>> framebuffer,
>>>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined
>> format; other
>>>> parts
>>>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we
>> care about is
>>>> that
>>>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra
>> 8-bit variable within
>>>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>>> 
>>>>  -- Keir
>>>> 
>>>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set
>> ro-attributes, problem
>>>>> still
>>>>> exist.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in
>> default_idle loop, other
>>>>> one
>>>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc.
>> So I think this
>>>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to
>> have a look?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>>>> Criping
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf
>> Of Keir Fraser
>>>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3
>> state wake up
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader"
>> <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep
>> 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to
>> write on this frame
>>>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags
>> s3_resume_flag
>>>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages
>> of the rombios
>>>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be
>> reverted. The correct fix
>>>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have
>> committed this fix as
>>>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  -- Keir
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

RE: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Ke, Liping]

Hi, Keir and jiajun

We found here the reason of triple fault is because eax = 0@point when do "call eax". 

Strange is that after pull latest tree xen/18178, kernel/622 do a clean build, virtual s3/resume back successfully. I can't reproduce the error anymore. (I use default remote-qemu). I tested both with vtd on and off. Both fine.

Also dump guest area from 0xfcb00 (upcall jump table area), seems just fine. Now I can't reproduce, I will keep on eye on the problem to see whether it happens again -:(.

Regards,
Criping

-----Original Message-----
From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] 
Sent: 2008年7月30日 20:05
To: Ke, Liping; Tian, Kevin; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke; Jiang, Yunhong
Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

No, not necessarily. Obviously some other exception or interrupt has
occurred here and lack of a valid IDT has turned it into a triple fault. It
oughtn't to be an interrupt since your RFLAGS.IF = 0. The fact that
RFLAGS.RF = 1 is perhaps interesting (could very well not be related to your
problem though).

 -- Keir

On 30/7/08 12:50, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:

> Btw: need TR register be set when switching to protect mode?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ke, Liping 
> Sent: 2008年7月30日 19:44
> To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke; Jiang, Yunhong
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> Hi, all
> Just found:
> When doing get_s3_waking_vector(rombios.c)->upcall(32bitgateway.c)->
> switch_to_protmode-> call eax (I add a deadloop in get_s3_wakeing_vector @
> beginning, so I think first instruction will fail@call eax) , it will meet
> triple fault with below information:
> 
> 
> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
> (XEN)         reason=00000002(trip fault) qualification=00000000
> 
> Seems mostly caused by protect mode execution environment after switching to
> protect mode. I dump both normal and abnormal vmcs. Could anybody help to
> identify below information:
> 1. Whether gdtr/ldtr selector/base/attr could be 0/0/0x93 in protect mode
> 2. gs/fs limit should be 0xfffffffff instead of 0xffff in protect mode?
> 3. cr0 and cr4 bit such as PAE/PSE makes different? I guess No?
> 4. Guest EFER now should be 0. It is correct when switching to protect mode?
> 
> Any input is warmly welcome, really not familiar with asm code in 32bitgateway
> -:)
> Thanks a lot!
> Criping
> 
> Triple fault point vmcs:
> (XEN) >>> Domain 1 <<<
> (XEN)  VCPU 0
> (XEN) *** Guest State ***
> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x0000000080010031, shadow=0x0000000000000011,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x0000000000002020, shadow=0x0000000000000000,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
> (XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
> (XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
> (XEN) RSP = 0x000000000000ffe8 (0x000000000000ffe8)  RIP = 0x0000000000000003
> (0
> x0000000000000003)
> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000010082 (0x0000000000010082)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0008, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) DS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) ES: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000001f,
> base=0x00000000000fa5f0
> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00082, limit=0x0000ffff,
> base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000ffff,
> base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
> (XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
> (XEN) *** Host State ***
> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff83007d3f7fa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e060
> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c80
> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff83007c69c080
> (XEN) CR0=0000000080050033 CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff83007d3f7fd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
> (XEN) *** Control State ***
> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044000
> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
> (XEN)         reason=00000002 qualification=00000000
> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
> (XEN) **************************************
> 
> 
> Normal vmcs
> (XEN)  VCPU 0
> (XEN) *** Guest State ***
> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x000000008005003b, shadow=0x0000000080050033,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x00000000000026f0, shadow=0x00000000000006f0,
> gh_mask=fffffff
> fffffffff
> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
> (XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
> (XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
> (XEN) RSP = 0x00000000f3a7de9c (0x00000000f3a7de9c)  RIP = 0x00000000c0506769
> (0
> x00000000c050676b)
> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000000046 (0x0000000000000046)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0060, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) DS: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0068, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) ES: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00c00, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00df3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x00000000b7f058d0
> (XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000000ff,
> base=0x00000000c1810000
> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00082, limit=0x00000027,
> base=0x00000000c078b020
> (XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000007ff,
> base=0x00000000c06e0000
> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0080, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x00002073, base=0x00000000c1807100
> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
> (XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
> (XEN) *** Host State ***
> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff828c8023ffa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e040
> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c00
> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff828c80278500
> (XEN) CR0=000000008005003b CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff828c8023ffd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
> (XEN) *** Control State ***
> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044080
> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000000 ilen=00000000
> (XEN)         reason=0000001e qualification=1f440001
> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
> (XEN) **************************************
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Ke, Liping
> Sent: 2008年7月30日 12:49
> To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> Hi, Kevin
> Thanks for the detailed explanation. Now I understand it :)
> Then most of guests with correct initial value should use legacy wakeup
> vector. The guests I have tested should be so.
> 
> Strange thing is that with top of tree, when do resume, it will do reset,
> mostly caused by not getting wakeup vector. I will dig into the reason.
> 
> Thanks& Regards,
> Criping
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tian, Kevin
> Sent: 2008年7月30日 11:09
> To: Ke, Liping; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> Liping, it's not guest BIOS to choose which instead should simply
> follow ACPI spec, i.e, if OSPM fills value in x_firmware field, then
> guest BIOS picks that value as wakeup vector in a flat protect mode.
> Else, if OSPM fills value in legacy firmware field, guest BIOS then
> resumes to given address in real mode.
> 
> It's the OSPM to decide which field to be used, according to whether
> its wakeup vector is developed as real mode code. Then it's not 'us'
> to decide. :-)
> 
> Commodity OSes are all using real mode wakeup vector by far. But
> there's a known bug in Linux kernel where, whether to use x_firmware
> field is incorrectly counted by its initial value. Normally BIOS will fill
> zero in that field which avoids Linux to use xfirmware field. If guest
> BIOS incorrectly puts some value in that field, guest Linux will choose
> xfirmware field although it only has real mode wakeup vector. But
> this is a guest bug.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 
> 
>> From: Ke, Liping
>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 10:51
>> 
>> Hi, Keir
>> 
>> Sure. I am looking on it:)
>> Just got someinfo, according to the ACPI spec, when we are
>> using x_firmware_waking_vector, we should wake up from protect
>> mode. Since we now resume back from real mode, so we'd better
>> use firmware_waking_vector.
>> 
>> Thanks a lot!
>> Criping
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com]
>> Sent: 2008年7月29日 23:12
>> To: Ke, Liping; Xu, Jiajun
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3
>> state wake up
>> 
>> I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume
>> is still not
>> working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
>> repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)
>> 
>> Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not
>> good. If the
>> OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in
>> flat protected
>> mode?
>> 
>> -- Keir
>> 
>> On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain
>> ACPI tables do
>>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector).
>> Secondly, when the BIOS
>>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial
>> boot but not on
>>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
>>> 
>>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I
>> removed all writes
>>>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are
>> happening then the logging
>>>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to
>> the Xen console.
>>>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add
>> guest_loglvl=all as a
>>>> Xen boot parameter.
>>>> 
>>>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash
>> important private (and in
>>>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>>> framebuffer,
>>>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined
>> format; other
>>>> parts
>>>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we
>> care about is
>>>> that
>>>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra
>> 8-bit variable within
>>>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>>> 
>>>>  -- Keir
>>>> 
>>>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set
>> ro-attributes, problem
>>>>> still
>>>>> exist.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in
>> default_idle loop, other
>>>>> one
>>>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc.
>> So I think this
>>>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to
>> have a look?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>>>> Criping
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf
>> Of Keir Fraser
>>>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3
>> state wake up
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader"
>> <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep
>> 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to
>> write on this frame
>>>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags
>> s3_resume_flag
>>>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages
>> of the rombios
>>>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be
>> reverted. The correct fix
>>>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have
>> committed this fix as
>>>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  -- Keir
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Jean Guyader]

Hi,

I give a try yesterday with the latest xen and qemu-remote and
now it also works for me.

Regards,

Ke, Liping wrote:
> Hi, Keir and jiajun
> 
> We found here the reason of triple fault is because eax = 0@point when do "call eax". 
> 
> Strange is that after pull latest tree xen/18178, kernel/622 do a clean build, virtual s3/resume back successfully. I can't reproduce the error anymore. (I use default remote-qemu). I tested both with vtd on and off. Both fine.
> 
> Also dump guest area from 0xfcb00 (upcall jump table area), seems just fine. Now I can't reproduce, I will keep on eye on the problem to see whether it happens again -:(.
> 
> Regards,
> Criping
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] 
> Sent: 2008年7月30日 20:05
> To: Ke, Liping; Tian, Kevin; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke; Jiang, Yunhong
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> No, not necessarily. Obviously some other exception or interrupt has
> occurred here and lack of a valid IDT has turned it into a triple fault. It
> oughtn't to be an interrupt since your RFLAGS.IF = 0. The fact that
> RFLAGS.RF = 1 is perhaps interesting (could very well not be related to your
> problem though).
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 30/7/08 12:50, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> Btw: need TR register be set when switching to protect mode?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ke, Liping 
>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 19:44
>> To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke; Jiang, Yunhong
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>>
>> Hi, all
>> Just found:
>> When doing get_s3_waking_vector(rombios.c)->upcall(32bitgateway.c)->
>> switch_to_protmode-> call eax (I add a deadloop in get_s3_wakeing_vector @
>> beginning, so I think first instruction will fail@call eax) , it will meet
>> triple fault with below information:
>>
>>
>> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN)         reason=00000002(trip fault) qualification=00000000
>>
>> Seems mostly caused by protect mode execution environment after switching to
>> protect mode. I dump both normal and abnormal vmcs. Could anybody help to
>> identify below information:
>> 1. Whether gdtr/ldtr selector/base/attr could be 0/0/0x93 in protect mode
>> 2. gs/fs limit should be 0xfffffffff instead of 0xffff in protect mode?
>> 3. cr0 and cr4 bit such as PAE/PSE makes different? I guess No?
>> 4. Guest EFER now should be 0. It is correct when switching to protect mode?
>>
>> Any input is warmly welcome, really not familiar with asm code in 32bitgateway
>> -:)
>> Thanks a lot!
>> Criping
>>
>> Triple fault point vmcs:
>> (XEN) >>> Domain 1 <<<
>> (XEN)  VCPU 0
>> (XEN) *** Guest State ***
>> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x0000000080010031, shadow=0x0000000000000011,
>> gh_mask=fffffff
>> fffffffff
>> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x0000000000002020, shadow=0x0000000000000000,
>> gh_mask=fffffff
>> fffffffff
>> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
>> (XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
>> (XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) RSP = 0x000000000000ffe8 (0x000000000000ffe8)  RIP = 0x0000000000000003
>> (0
>> x0000000000000003)
>> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000010082 (0x0000000000010082)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
>> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
>> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0008, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) DS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) ES: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000001f,
>> base=0x00000000000fa5f0
>> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00082, limit=0x0000ffff,
>> base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000ffff,
>> base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
>> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
>> (XEN) *** Host State ***
>> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff83007d3f7fa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
>> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e060
>> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c80
>> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff83007c69c080
>> (XEN) CR0=0000000080050033 CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
>> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff83007d3f7fd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
>> (XEN) *** Control State ***
>> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
>> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
>> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044000
>> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN)         reason=00000002 qualification=00000000
>> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
>> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
>> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
>> (XEN) **************************************
>>
>>
>> Normal vmcs
>> (XEN)  VCPU 0
>> (XEN) *** Guest State ***
>> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x000000008005003b, shadow=0x0000000080050033,
>> gh_mask=fffffff
>> fffffffff
>> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x00000000000026f0, shadow=0x00000000000006f0,
>> gh_mask=fffffff
>> fffffffff
>> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
>> (XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
>> (XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) RSP = 0x00000000f3a7de9c (0x00000000f3a7de9c)  RIP = 0x00000000c0506769
>> (0
>> x00000000c050676b)
>> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000000046 (0x0000000000000046)  DR7 = 0x0000000000000400
>> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
>> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0060, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) DS: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0068, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) ES: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00c00, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00df3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x00000000b7f058d0
>> (XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000000ff,
>> base=0x00000000c1810000
>> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00082, limit=0x00000027,
>> base=0x00000000c078b020
>> (XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000007ff,
>> base=0x00000000c06e0000
>> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0080, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x00002073, base=0x00000000c1807100
>> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
>> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
>> (XEN) *** Host State ***
>> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff828c8023ffa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
>> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e040
>> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c00
>> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff828c80278500
>> (XEN) CR0=000000008005003b CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
>> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff828c8023ffd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
>> (XEN) *** Control State ***
>> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
>> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
>> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044080
>> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000000 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN)         reason=0000001e qualification=1f440001
>> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
>> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
>> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
>> (XEN) **************************************
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Ke, Liping
>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 12:49
>> To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>>
>> Hi, Kevin
>> Thanks for the detailed explanation. Now I understand it :)
>> Then most of guests with correct initial value should use legacy wakeup
>> vector. The guests I have tested should be so.
>>
>> Strange thing is that with top of tree, when do resume, it will do reset,
>> mostly caused by not getting wakeup vector. I will dig into the reason.
>>
>> Thanks& Regards,
>> Criping
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tian, Kevin
>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 11:09
>> To: Ke, Liping; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>>
>> Liping, it's not guest BIOS to choose which instead should simply
>> follow ACPI spec, i.e, if OSPM fills value in x_firmware field, then
>> guest BIOS picks that value as wakeup vector in a flat protect mode.
>> Else, if OSPM fills value in legacy firmware field, guest BIOS then
>> resumes to given address in real mode.
>>
>> It's the OSPM to decide which field to be used, according to whether
>> its wakeup vector is developed as real mode code. Then it's not 'us'
>> to decide. :-)
>>
>> Commodity OSes are all using real mode wakeup vector by far. But
>> there's a known bug in Linux kernel where, whether to use x_firmware
>> field is incorrectly counted by its initial value. Normally BIOS will fill
>> zero in that field which avoids Linux to use xfirmware field. If guest
>> BIOS incorrectly puts some value in that field, guest Linux will choose
>> xfirmware field although it only has real mode wakeup vector. But
>> this is a guest bug.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>> From: Ke, Liping
>>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 10:51
>>>
>>> Hi, Keir
>>>
>>> Sure. I am looking on it:)
>>> Just got someinfo, according to the ACPI spec, when we are
>>> using x_firmware_waking_vector, we should wake up from protect
>>> mode. Since we now resume back from real mode, so we'd better
>>> use firmware_waking_vector.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot!
>>> Criping
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com]
>>> Sent: 2008年7月29日 23:12
>>> To: Ke, Liping; Xu, Jiajun
>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3
>>> state wake up
>>>
>>> I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume
>>> is still not
>>> working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
>>> repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)
>>>
>>> Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not
>>> good. If the
>>> OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in
>>> flat protected
>>> mode?
>>>
>>> -- Keir
>>>
>>> On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain
>>> ACPI tables do
>>>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector).
>>> Secondly, when the BIOS
>>>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial
>>> boot but not on
>>>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>>>>
>>>>  -- Keir
>>>>
>>>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I
>>> removed all writes
>>>>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are
>>> happening then the logging
>>>>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to
>>> the Xen console.
>>>>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add
>>> guest_loglvl=all as a
>>>>> Xen boot parameter.
>>>>>
>>>>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash
>>> important private (and in
>>>>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>>>> framebuffer,
>>>>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined
>>> format; other
>>>>> parts
>>>>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we
>>> care about is
>>>>> that
>>>>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra
>>> 8-bit variable within
>>>>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>>>>
>>>>>  -- Keir
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set
>>> ro-attributes, problem
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in
>>> default_idle loop, other
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc.
>>> So I think this
>>>>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to
>>> have a look?
>>>>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>>>>> Criping
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf
>>> Of Keir Fraser
>>>>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3
>>> state wake up
>>>>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader"
>>> <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep
>>> 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to
>>> write on this frame
>>>>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags
>>> s3_resume_flag
>>>>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages
>>> of the rombios
>>>>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>>>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be
>>> reverted. The correct fix
>>>>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have
>>> committed this fix as
>>>>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  -- Keir
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


-- 
Jean Guyader

Re: Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up

[Keir Fraser]

There's a race in rombios/Makefile which could cause the rombios to be
re-built befor the 32bit parts have been re-generated. If you re-made your
rombios only once, and then started debugging it without ever re-making it
again, you could then see this issue. If you had at any point re-made your
rombios a second time, the issue would most likely have gone away. :-)

 -- Keir

On 31/7/08 11:25, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi, Keir and jiajun
> 
> We found here the reason of triple fault is because eax = 0@point when do
> "call eax". 
> 
> Strange is that after pull latest tree xen/18178, kernel/622 do a clean build,
> virtual s3/resume back successfully. I can't reproduce the error anymore. (I
> use default remote-qemu). I tested both with vtd on and off. Both fine.
> 
> Also dump guest area from 0xfcb00 (upcall jump table area), seems just fine.
> Now I can't reproduce, I will keep on eye on the problem to see whether it
> happens again -:(.
> 
> Regards,
> Criping
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com]
> Sent: 2008年7月30日 20:05
> To: Ke, Liping; Tian, Kevin; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke; Jiang, Yunhong
> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
> 
> No, not necessarily. Obviously some other exception or interrupt has
> occurred here and lack of a valid IDT has turned it into a triple fault. It
> oughtn't to be an interrupt since your RFLAGS.IF = 0. The fact that
> RFLAGS.RF = 1 is perhaps interesting (could very well not be related to your
> problem though).
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 30/7/08 12:50, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> Btw: need TR register be set when switching to protect mode?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ke, Liping
>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 19:44
>> To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke; Jiang, Yunhong
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>> 
>> Hi, all
>> Just found:
>> When doing get_s3_waking_vector(rombios.c)->upcall(32bitgateway.c)->
>> switch_to_protmode-> call eax (I add a deadloop in get_s3_wakeing_vector @
>> beginning, so I think first instruction will fail@call eax) , it will meet
>> triple fault with below information:
>> 
>> 
>> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN)         reason=00000002(trip fault) qualification=00000000
>> 
>> Seems mostly caused by protect mode execution environment after switching to
>> protect mode. I dump both normal and abnormal vmcs. Could anybody help to
>> identify below information:
>> 1. Whether gdtr/ldtr selector/base/attr could be 0/0/0x93 in protect mode
>> 2. gs/fs limit should be 0xfffffffff instead of 0xffff in protect mode?
>> 3. cr0 and cr4 bit such as PAE/PSE makes different? I guess No?
>> 4. Guest EFER now should be 0. It is correct when switching to protect mode?
>> 
>> Any input is warmly welcome, really not familiar with asm code in
>> 32bitgateway
>> -:)
>> Thanks a lot!
>> Criping
>> 
>> Triple fault point vmcs:
>> (XEN) >>> Domain 1 <<<
>> (XEN)  VCPU 0
>> (XEN) *** Guest State ***
>> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x0000000080010031, shadow=0x0000000000000011,
>> gh_mask=fffffff
>> fffffffff
>> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x0000000000002020, shadow=0x0000000000000000,
>> gh_mask=fffffff
>> fffffffff
>> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
>> (XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
>> (XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) RSP = 0x000000000000ffe8 (0x000000000000ffe8)  RIP = 0x0000000000000003
>> (0
>> x0000000000000003)
>> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000010082 (0x0000000000010082)  DR7 =
>> 0x0000000000000400
>> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
>> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0008, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) DS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) ES: sel=0x0018, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00093, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000001f,
>> base=0x00000000000fa5f0
>> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00082, limit=0x0000ffff,
>> base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00000, limit=0x0000ffff,
>> base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x0000ffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
>> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
>> (XEN) *** Host State ***
>> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff83007d3f7fa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
>> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e060
>> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c80
>> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff83007c69c080
>> (XEN) CR0=0000000080050033 CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
>> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff83007d3f7fd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
>> (XEN) *** Control State ***
>> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
>> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
>> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044000
>> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000043 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN)         reason=00000002 qualification=00000000
>> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
>> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
>> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
>> (XEN) **************************************
>> 
>> 
>> Normal vmcs
>> (XEN)  VCPU 0
>> (XEN) *** Guest State ***
>> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x000000008005003b, shadow=0x0000000080050033,
>> gh_mask=fffffff
>> fffffffff
>> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x00000000000026f0, shadow=0x00000000000006f0,
>> gh_mask=fffffff
>> fffffffff
>> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000007d3eba20, target_count=0
>> (XEN)      target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000
>> (XEN)      target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) RSP = 0x00000000f3a7de9c (0x00000000f3a7de9c)  RIP = 0x00000000c0506769
>> (0
>> x00000000c050676b)
>> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000000046 (0x0000000000000046)  DR7 =
>> 0x0000000000000400
>> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=00000000c1809300 CS:RIP=0060:00000000c0403f4c
>> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0060, attr=0x00c9b, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) DS: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0068, attr=0x00c93, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) ES: sel=0x007b, attr=0x00cf3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0000, attr=0x00c00, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00df3, limit=0xffffffff, base=0x00000000b7f058d0
>> (XEN) GDTR: sel=0x0033, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000000ff,
>> base=0x00000000c1810000
>> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00082, limit=0x00000027,
>> base=0x00000000c078b020
>> (XEN) IDTR: sel=0x0088, attr=0x00000, limit=0x000007ff,
>> base=0x00000000c06e0000
>> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0080, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x00002073, base=0x00000000c1807100
>> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffc32074372c
>> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) Interruptibility=0000 ActivityState=0000
>> (XEN) *** Host State ***
>> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff828c8023ffa0  RIP = 0xffff828c80181200
>> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e040
>> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 TRBase=ffff828c80274c00
>> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff820000000000 IDTBase=ffff828c80278500
>> (XEN) CR0=000000008005003b CR3=000000007b59c000 CR4=00000000000026b0
>> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff828c8023ffd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801a5290
>> (XEN) *** Control State ***
>> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fa SecondaryExec=00000041
>> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff
>> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044080
>> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=00000031 errcode=00000006 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000000 ilen=00000000
>> (XEN)         reason=0000001e qualification=1f440001
>> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000
>> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00
>> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000
>> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000
>> (XEN) **************************************
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Ke, Liping
>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 12:49
>> To: Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>> 
>> Hi, Kevin
>> Thanks for the detailed explanation. Now I understand it :)
>> Then most of guests with correct initial value should use legacy wakeup
>> vector. The guests I have tested should be so.
>> 
>> Strange thing is that with top of tree, when do resume, it will do reset,
>> mostly caused by not getting wakeup vector. I will dig into the reason.
>> 
>> Thanks& Regards,
>> Criping
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tian, Kevin
>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 11:09
>> To: Ke, Liping; Keir Fraser; Xu, Jiajun; Yu, Ke
>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3 state wake up
>> 
>> Liping, it's not guest BIOS to choose which instead should simply
>> follow ACPI spec, i.e, if OSPM fills value in x_firmware field, then
>> guest BIOS picks that value as wakeup vector in a flat protect mode.
>> Else, if OSPM fills value in legacy firmware field, guest BIOS then
>> resumes to given address in real mode.
>> 
>> It's the OSPM to decide which field to be used, according to whether
>> its wakeup vector is developed as real mode code. Then it's not 'us'
>> to decide. :-)
>> 
>> Commodity OSes are all using real mode wakeup vector by far. But
>> there's a known bug in Linux kernel where, whether to use x_firmware
>> field is incorrectly counted by its initial value. Normally BIOS will fill
>> zero in that field which avoids Linux to use xfirmware field. If guest
>> BIOS incorrectly puts some value in that field, guest Linux will choose
>> xfirmware field although it only has real mode wakeup vector. But
>> this is a guest bug.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Ke, Liping
>>> Sent: 2008年7月30日 10:51
>>> 
>>> Hi, Keir
>>> 
>>> Sure. I am looking on it:)
>>> Just got someinfo, according to the ACPI spec, when we are
>>> using x_firmware_waking_vector, we should wake up from protect
>>> mode. Since we now resume back from real mode, so we'd better
>>> use firmware_waking_vector.
>>> 
>>> Thanks a lot!
>>> Criping
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com]
>>> Sent: 2008年7月29日 23:12
>>> To: Ke, Liping; Xu, Jiajun
>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3
>>> state wake up
>>> 
>>> I fixed these issues as of changeset 18166. However S3 resume
>>> is still not
>>> working for me. Perhaps it's something to do with the new ioemu-remote
>>> repository? Anyway, I'll hand it back to you to dig into further. ;-)
>>> 
>>> Oh, also our handling of x_firmware_waking_vector appears not
>>> good. If the
>>> OSPM specifies that vector, are we not supposed to wake it in
>>> flat protected
>>> mode?
>>> 
>>> -- Keir
>>> 
>>> On 29/7/08 11:26, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I can reproduce the issue. It's two things: firstly certain
>>> ACPI tables do
>>>> need to be writable (e.g., firmware_waking_vector).
>>> Secondly, when the BIOS
>>>> re-POSTs it is writing to itself, which we allow on initial
>>> boot but not on
>>>> warm reset. That needs fixing. I'll take a look at doing so.
>>>> 
>>>>  -- Keir
>>>> 
>>>> On 29/7/08 10:53, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I didn't actually test cs18120, so I'm not certain that I
>>> removed all writes
>>>>> to write-protected ROM regions. If such writes are
>>> happening then the logging
>>>>> at line 1510 in xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c should be printed to
>>> the Xen console.
>>>>> You may need a debug build of Xen to see them, or add
>>> guest_loglvl=all as a
>>>>> Xen boot parameter.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The EBDA is simply a RAM area for the BIOS to stash
>>> important private (and in
>>>>> some cases public) data. Usually it is located just below the VGA
>>>>> framebuffer,
>>>>> at around 0x9fc00. Certain parts of it have a well-defined
>>> format; other
>>>>> parts
>>>>> are completely private to the BIOS. For our purposes all we
>>> care about is
>>>>> that
>>>>> we do not write-protect it, and we just stash an extra
>>> 8-bit variable within
>>>>> it to indicate if this is a warm return from S3.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  -- Keir
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 29/7/08 10:47, "Ke, Liping" <liping.ke@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi, Selander and Jean
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jiajun is reporting similar (on cs18132) error in latest cs.
>>>>>> I found when keeping cs18120, revert 18027, everything is just ok.
>>>>>> So cs18120 itself works fine, yet if cs18027 set
>>> ro-attributes, problem
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just did some debugging, from ITP, one cpu is in
>>> default_idle loop, other
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> is for-ever running in x86_emulate/memcpy/__hvm_copy, etc.
>>> So I think this
>>>>>> might be the same problem Guyader meet before?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am not familiar about EBDA, could somebody help me to
>>> have a look?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks& Regards,
>>>>>> Criping
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
>>>>>> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf
>>> Of Keir Fraser
>>>>>> Sent: 2008年7月24日 20:45
>>>>>> To: Jean Guyader; Trolle Selander
>>>>>> Cc: xen-devel; Ian Jackson
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] ioemu-remote: ACPI S3
>>> state wake up
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 24/7/08 13:12, "Jean Guyader"
>>> <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>>>>>> I already tried to reduce the rw area, and just keep
>>> 0xe0 -> 0xef. But
>>>>>>>> obviously it doesn't work the device model needs to
>>> write on this frame
>>>>>>>> 0xf1. I still don't figure out why.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The rombios write on this page because of this flags
>>> s3_resume_flag
>>>>>>> (rombios.c:98883). I don't know if it's a good reason to set the
>>>>>>> rombios as rw. However it's bad to set the first 2 pages
>>> of the rombios
>>>>>>> as rw just because of that.
>>>>>>> Any suggestions ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In that case the changes to ioemu-remote should be
>>> reverted. The correct fix
>>>>>> is to move the S3 resume flag into the EBDA. I have
>>> committed this fix as
>>>>>> xen-unstable.hg:18120.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  -- Keir
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
>