From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Malley Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Boot protocol changes Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:20:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1191496854.7083.5.camel@feisty> References: <1191491231.5950.7.camel@feisty> <1191494843.8268.157.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1191494843.8268.157.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Rusty Russell Cc: lguest@ozlabs.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 20:47 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:47 +0100, Chris Malley wrote: > > Hi guys > > > > I gave these patches a try (on top of 2.6.23-rc9 plus the previously > > submitted 2.6.24 patch set). > > > > The last two seem to cause Badness on my system, whereby if I start a > > guest (using the same bzImage as the host, as before) it seems to boot > > OK, and the host system still superficially looks stable (my X session > > is OK and I can interact with existing processes) but if I attempt to > > launch any new process on the host (even typing "ls" into a terminal > > window) I get a Segmentation fault. > > I think this might actually be caused by a nasty bug in one of the > previous patches (patch 27). I found it because every second time I > launched a guest it failed. Strange, huh? > > These lines in drivers/lguest/page_tables.c: > > + pte_t ro_gpte = gpte; > + pte_wrprotect(ro_gpte); > > Should be: > > + pte_t ro_gpte = pte_wrprotct(gpte); just being pedantic I assume you mean: + pte_t ro_gpte = pte_wrprotect(gpte); > That's the only "break the host" issue I know of... > > Thanks! > Rusty. Yep, that fixes it, thanks Rusty! -- Chris