From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [BUG] XEN 4.3.3 - segfault in xl create for HVM with PCI passthrough Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 12:39:00 +0000 Message-ID: <1415191140.15317.11.camel@citrix.com> References: <544EB843.9060503@web2web.at> <1414493998.10206.3.camel@citrix.com> <544FB8C4.9000102@web2web.at> <1414512266.10974.5.camel@citrix.com> <54503440.3050302@web2web.at> <5452C43C.6050800@web2web.at> <5458ED27.8060502@web2web.at> <1415115868.11486.49.camel@citrix.com> <5458FB49.4040801@web2web.at> <1415118690.11486.53.camel@citrix.com> <54590D4D.90300@web2web.at> <1415180713.11486.61.camel@citrix.com> <545A118B.7040309@web2web.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <545A118B.7040309@web2web.at> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Atom2 Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 13:01 +0100, Atom2 wrote: Thanks for all that, sadly it's not giving me any clues what is going wrong :-/ > To me, it looks as if something is broken with the PCI passthrough stuff > and that has started with 4.3.3. Strangely however, valgrind seems to > work around that issue insofar that no segfault happens. Is there any > explanation of the different behaviour between native execution of xl > and starting xl under valgrind's control? Valgrind has it's own memory allocator etc, but it's supposed to catch errors, not hide them. I think even 3.10.0 is missing support for some hypercalls which are being used by passthrough, which is why we are continuing to see different behaviours. I think we are reaching the point of diminishing returns with vagrind. It probably is worth rerunning with "-v --leak-check=full", but after that we'd be looking at adding valgrind patches for the new hypercalls, which I don't think will be worthwhile (although I intend to write the patches anyway). So unless "-v --leak-check=full" tells me something (which I'm doubtful of at this stage) I think we're back to bisecting the changes since 4.3.1, sorry. Ian.