From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51012) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V0GL9-0008OM-To for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:27:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V0GL9-0002co-18 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:27:43 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27507) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V0GH4-0008Sl-Ai for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:23:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:23:28 -0400 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20130719152328.1669cb76@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51E98E42.9060102@twiddle.net> References: <20130719132852.27732500@redhat.com> <51E98E42.9060102@twiddle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Commit 23326164ae (exec: Support 64-bit op...) triggers assertion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:06:42 -0700 Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/19/2013 10:28 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Reproducer: > > > > # ./qemu-qmp -drive file=disks/test.img,if=virtio,cache=none,aio=native \ > > -enable-kvm -m 1G -monitor stdio -usb -usbdevice host:1.43 > > QEMU 1.5.50 monitor - type 'help' for more information > > (qemu) qemu-qmp: /home/lcapitulino/work/src/upstream/qmp-unstable/exec.c:1927: memory_access_size: Assertion `l >= access_size_min' failed. > > > > I have an USB stick on 1.43, although I did manage to get this without > > USB at all (forgot how, though). > > > > Bisect says the bug was introduced by: > > > > commit 23326164ae6fe8d94b7eff123e03f97ca6978d33 > > Author: Richard Henderson > > Date: Mon Jul 8 14:55:59 2013 -0700 > > > > exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_space_rw > > > > Yes, we've already discussed it and agreed upon a solution. > I guess it hasn't been applied yet? Well, I saw the problem against latest upstream (HEAD 24943978c).