Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression bug

Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression bug

[Ben Taylor]

Hi Julia,

---- risc@volumehost.com wrote: 
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:10:02AM -0400, Ben Taylor wrote:
> > 
> > I've been keeping up with CVS patches for qemu about once a week.  I just updated
> > tonight after the big round of patches that have been commited and am seeing a
> > consistent failure with my existing ubuntu-7.04 32-bit guest on Solaris 10/x86 32-bit
> > host.  The last time I tested the CVS code would have been 5/21/07, so something
> > recently changed has broken the i386-softmmu
> > 
> > qemu: fatal: Trying to execute code outside RAM or ROM at 0xfffffff0
> > 

> > Anyone seen this?
> > 
> > Ben
> > 
> Ben:
> 
> i've been monitoring this, and reporting on irc since the bug was comitted. i've tracked it down to somewhere between CVS version 2007-05-26 15:00 and 2007-05-26 17:40.
> as in, 15:00 works, 17:40 dosent, and if i try to check out the version between.. it fails to compile.

Great spot.  I reverted the patch to exec.c  from 05/26/07 at 17:36 and QEMU 
again booted my ubuntu 7.04 image.

Looks like the patch from http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/qemu/exec.c?cvsroot=qemu&r1=1.96&r2=1.97
needs to be reverted and reworked before being recommitted.

> I'm quite new here, so i didn't feel like yelling "the sky is falling" on a mailing list.

What you did was perfect.  Thanks. 

> 
> hope this helps,
> 
> Julia Longtin <risc@volumehost.com>

Regards,

Ben

Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression bug

[Blue Swirl]

On 5/29/07, Ben Taylor <sol10x86@cox.net> wrote:
> Looks like the patch from http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/qemu/exec.c?cvsroot=qemu&r1=1.96&r2=1.97
> needs to be reverted and reworked before being recommitted.

Thank you for the reports. I still can't reproduce the bug, but it
seems that on PC, the area between 0xa0000 and 0x100000 is registered
multiple times and this could confuse the subpage code.

Adding printf to cpu_register_physical memory reveals:
cpu_register_physical_memory: start_addr 00000000000a0000 size 1000 phys_offset
70
cpu_register_physical_memory: start_addr 00000000000a0000 size 1000 phys_offset
70
cpu_register_physical_memory: start_addr 00000000000a0000 size 1000 phys_offset
70
cpu_register_physical_memory: start_addr 00000000000a0000 size 1000 phys_offset
70
cpu_register_physical_memory: start_addr 00000000000a0000 size 1000 phys_offset
70
cpu_register_physical_memory: start_addr 00000000000a0000 size 20000 phys_offset
 70
cpu_register_physical_memory: start_addr 00000000000a0000 size 20000 phys_offset
 a0000

The subpage part in cpu_register_physical_memory could be disabled
just for i386. A better fix would be to fix the PC/VGA/PIIX memory
registrations and also make the subpage code handle this case.

Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression bug

[Blue Swirl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 104 bytes --]

Hi,

I found a bug in the subpage checking code. Could you try if the
attached patch fixes the problem?

[-- Attachment #2: fix_subpage.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 820 bytes --]

Index: qemu/exec.c
===================================================================
--- qemu.orig/exec.c	2007-05-29 18:39:35.000000000 +0000
+++ qemu/exec.c	2007-05-29 18:39:54.000000000 +0000
@@ -1922,7 +1922,7 @@
                 need_subpage = 1;                                       \
         }                                                               \
                                                                         \
-        if (end_addr - addr > TARGET_PAGE_SIZE)                         \
+        if (end_addr - addr >= TARGET_PAGE_SIZE)                        \
             end_addr2 = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE - 1;                           \
         else {                                                          \
             end_addr2 = (start_addr + orig_size - 1) & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK; \

Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression bug

[risc]

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 09:44:39PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I found a bug in the subpage checking code. Could you try if the
> attached patch fixes the problem?

thats a negative. the exact same behavior as before.

qemu: fatal: Trying to execute code outside RAM or ROM at 0xfffffff0

EAX=00000000 EBX=00000000 ECX=00000000 EDX=00000600
ESI=00000000 EDI=00000000 EBP=00000000 ESP=00000000
EIP=0000fff0 EFL=00000002 [-------] CPL=0 II=0 A20=1 SMM=0 HLT=0
ES =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
CS =f000 ffff0000 0000ffff 00000000
SS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
DS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
FS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
GS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
LDT=0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008000
TR =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008000
GDT=     00000000 0000ffff
IDT=     00000000 0000ffff
CR0=60000010 CR2=00000000 CR3=00000000 CR4=00000000
CCS=00000000 CCD=00000000 CCO=EFLAGS  
FCW=037f FSW=0000 [ST=0] FTW=00 MXCSR=00001f80
FPR0=0000000000000000 0000 FPR1=0000000000000000 0000
FPR2=0000000000000000 0000 FPR3=0000000000000000 0000
FPR4=0000000000000000 0000 FPR5=0000000000000000 0000
FPR6=0000000000000000 0000 FPR7=0000000000000000 0000
XMM00=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM01=00000000000000000000000000000000
XMM02=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM03=00000000000000000000000000000000
XMM04=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM05=00000000000000000000000000000000
XMM06=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM07=00000000000000000000000000000000
./start.sh: line 4: 14065 Aborted                 qemu -hda ide0.img

ouch.

Julia Longtin <risc@volumehost.com>

Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression bug

[Blue Swirl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 612 bytes --]

On 5/29/07, risc@volumehost.com <risc@volumehost.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 09:44:39PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found a bug in the subpage checking code. Could you try if the
> > attached patch fixes the problem?
>
> thats a negative. the exact same behavior as before.

Thanks.

The bug was actually that on PC, the very last addresses are mapped,
and the current code failed when the start_addr + size wrapped back to
0. That didn't happen on amd64, where I first tried to reproduce the
bug.

The attached patch fixes the problem for me, I'll commit it if there
are no objections.

[-- Attachment #2: fix_subpage.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1389 bytes --]

Index: qemu/exec.c
===================================================================
--- qemu.orig/exec.c	2007-05-29 19:31:15.000000000 +0000
+++ qemu/exec.c	2007-05-29 19:31:24.000000000 +0000
@@ -1922,7 +1922,7 @@
                 need_subpage = 1;                                       \
         }                                                               \
                                                                         \
-        if (end_addr - addr > TARGET_PAGE_SIZE)                         \
+        if ((start_addr + orig_size) - addr >= TARGET_PAGE_SIZE)        \
             end_addr2 = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE - 1;                           \
         else {                                                          \
             end_addr2 = (start_addr + orig_size - 1) & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK; \
@@ -1944,9 +1944,9 @@
     unsigned long orig_size = size;
     void *subpage;
 
-    end_addr = start_addr + (target_phys_addr_t)size;
     size = (size + TARGET_PAGE_SIZE - 1) & TARGET_PAGE_MASK;
-    for(addr = start_addr; addr < end_addr; addr += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) {
+    end_addr = start_addr + (target_phys_addr_t)size;
+    for(addr = start_addr; addr != end_addr; addr += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) {
         p = phys_page_find(addr >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
         if (p && p->phys_offset != IO_MEM_UNASSIGNED) {
             unsigned long orig_memory = p->phys_offset;

Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression bug

[risc]

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 10:33:37PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 5/29/07, risc@volumehost.com <risc@volumehost.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 09:44:39PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I found a bug in the subpage checking code. Could you try if the
> >> attached patch fixes the problem?
> >
> >thats a negative. the exact same behavior as before.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The bug was actually that on PC, the very last addresses are mapped,
> and the current code failed when the start_addr + size wrapped back to
> 0. That didn't happen on amd64, where I first tried to reproduce the
> bug.
> 
> The attached patch fixes the problem for me, I'll commit it if there
> are no objections.

this patch works. thanks. :)

Julia Longtin <risc@volumehost.com>

Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression bug

[Ben Taylor]

---- Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com> wrote: 
> On 5/29/07, risc@volumehost.com <risc@volumehost.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 09:44:39PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I found a bug in the subpage checking code. Could you try if the
> > > attached patch fixes the problem?
> >
> > thats a negative. the exact same behavior as before.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> The bug was actually that on PC, the very last addresses are mapped,
> and the current code failed when the start_addr + size wrapped back to
> 0. That didn't happen on amd64, where I first tried to reproduce the
> bug.
> 
> The attached patch fixes the problem for me, I'll commit it if there
> are no objections.

Works for me, too.

Ben

[Qemu-devel] Regression bug

[Ben Taylor]

I've been keeping up with CVS patches for qemu about once a week.  I just updated
tonight after the big round of patches that have been commited and am seeing a
consistent failure with my existing ubuntu-7.04 32-bit guest on Solaris 10/x86 32-bit
host.  The last time I tested the CVS code would have been 5/21/07, so something
recently changed has broken the i386-softmmu

qemu: fatal: Trying to execute code outside RAM or ROM at 0xfffffff0

EAX=00000000 EBX=00000000 ECX=00000000 EDX=00000600
ESI=00000000 EDI=00000000 EBP=00000000 ESP=00000000
EIP=0000fff0 EFL=00000002 [-------] CPL=0 II=0 A20=1 SMM=0 HLT=0
ES =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
CS =f000 ffff0000 0000ffff 00000000
SS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
DS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
FS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
GS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
LDT=0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008000
TR =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008000
GDT=     00000000 0000ffff
IDT=     00000000 0000ffff
CR0=60000010 CR2=00000000 CR3=00000000 CR4=00000000
CCS=00000000 CCD=00000000 CCO=EFLAGS
FCW=037f FSW=0000 [ST=0] FTW=00 MXCSR=00001f80
FPR0=0000000000000000 0000 FPR1=0000000000000000 0000
FPR2=0000000000000000 0000 FPR3=0000000000000000 0000
FPR4=0000000000000000 0000 FPR5=0000000000000000 0000
FPR6=0000000000000000 0000 FPR7=0000000000000000 0000
XMM00=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM01=00000000000000000000000000000000
XMM02=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM03=00000000000000000000000000000000
XMM04=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM05=00000000000000000000000000000000
XMM06=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM07=00000000000000000000000000000000

Anyone seen this?

Ben

Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression bug

[Xavier Gnata]

Hi,

I do reproduce that trying to boot a kubuntu i386 on an i368.
Now we have to bisect...

Xavier.


> I've been keeping up with CVS patches for qemu about once a week.  I just updated
> tonight after the big round of patches that have been commited and am seeing a
> consistent failure with my existing ubuntu-7.04 32-bit guest on Solaris 10/x86 32-bit
> host.  The last time I tested the CVS code would have been 5/21/07, so something
> recently changed has broken the i386-softmmu
>
> qemu: fatal: Trying to execute code outside RAM or ROM at 0xfffffff0
>
> EAX=00000000 EBX=00000000 ECX=00000000 EDX=00000600
> ESI=00000000 EDI=00000000 EBP=00000000 ESP=00000000
> EIP=0000fff0 EFL=00000002 [-------] CPL=0 II=0 A20=1 SMM=0 HLT=0
> ES =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
> CS =f000 ffff0000 0000ffff 00000000
> SS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
> DS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
> FS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
> GS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
> LDT=0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008000
> TR =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008000
> GDT=     00000000 0000ffff
> IDT=     00000000 0000ffff
> CR0=60000010 CR2=00000000 CR3=00000000 CR4=00000000
> CCS=00000000 CCD=00000000 CCO=EFLAGS
> FCW=037f FSW=0000 [ST=0] FTW=00 MXCSR=00001f80
> FPR0=0000000000000000 0000 FPR1=0000000000000000 0000
> FPR2=0000000000000000 0000 FPR3=0000000000000000 0000
> FPR4=0000000000000000 0000 FPR5=0000000000000000 0000
> FPR6=0000000000000000 0000 FPR7=0000000000000000 0000
> XMM00=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM01=00000000000000000000000000000000
> XMM02=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM03=00000000000000000000000000000000
> XMM04=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM05=00000000000000000000000000000000
> XMM06=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM07=00000000000000000000000000000000
>
> Anyone seen this?
>
> Ben
>
>
>
>   


-- 
############################################
Xavier Gnata
CRAL - Observatoire de Lyon
9, avenue Charles André
69561 Saint Genis Laval cedex
Phone: +33 4 78 86 85 28
Fax: +33 4 78 86 83 86
E-mail: gnata@obs.univ-lyon1.fr
############################################ 

Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression bug

[risc]

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:10:02AM -0400, Ben Taylor wrote:
> 
> I've been keeping up with CVS patches for qemu about once a week.  I just updated
> tonight after the big round of patches that have been commited and am seeing a
> consistent failure with my existing ubuntu-7.04 32-bit guest on Solaris 10/x86 32-bit
> host.  The last time I tested the CVS code would have been 5/21/07, so something
> recently changed has broken the i386-softmmu
> 
> qemu: fatal: Trying to execute code outside RAM or ROM at 0xfffffff0
> 
> EAX=00000000 EBX=00000000 ECX=00000000 EDX=00000600
> ESI=00000000 EDI=00000000 EBP=00000000 ESP=00000000
> EIP=0000fff0 EFL=00000002 [-------] CPL=0 II=0 A20=1 SMM=0 HLT=0
> ES =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
> CS =f000 ffff0000 0000ffff 00000000
> SS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
> DS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
> FS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
> GS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00000000
> LDT=0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008000
> TR =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008000
> GDT=     00000000 0000ffff
> IDT=     00000000 0000ffff
> CR0=60000010 CR2=00000000 CR3=00000000 CR4=00000000
> CCS=00000000 CCD=00000000 CCO=EFLAGS
> FCW=037f FSW=0000 [ST=0] FTW=00 MXCSR=00001f80
> FPR0=0000000000000000 0000 FPR1=0000000000000000 0000
> FPR2=0000000000000000 0000 FPR3=0000000000000000 0000
> FPR4=0000000000000000 0000 FPR5=0000000000000000 0000
> FPR6=0000000000000000 0000 FPR7=0000000000000000 0000
> XMM00=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM01=00000000000000000000000000000000
> XMM02=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM03=00000000000000000000000000000000
> XMM04=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM05=00000000000000000000000000000000
> XMM06=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM07=00000000000000000000000000000000
> 
> Anyone seen this?
> 
> Ben
> 
Ben:

i've been monitoring this, and reporting on irc since the bug was comitted. i've tracked it down to somewhere between CVS version 2007-05-26 15:00 and 2007-05-26 17:40.
as in, 15:00 works, 17:40 dosent, and if i try to check out the version between.. it fails to compile.

I'm quite new here, so i didn't feel like yelling "the sky is falling" on a mailing list.

hope this helps,

Julia Longtin <risc@volumehost.com>