From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Guthro Subject: Re: XSAVE/XRSTOR crash resurgence in 4.3 Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 09:24:53 -0400 Message-ID: <930123250021152322@unknownmsgid> References: <51D592E502000078000E2C7D@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51D592E502000078000E2C7D@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Mark Roddy , Ben Guthro , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 03.07.13 at 16:02, Ben Guthro wrote: >> We (XenClient Enterprise) recently updated our mainline development to >> xen 4.3, and noticed that the xsave/xrstor bug that crashes 32bit >> windows guests with the driver verifier enabled has re-emerged. >> >> From Mark Roddy: >> "The DOMU crash from last nights run has this signature in the crash dump: >> >> Interrupt Service Routine A30BC91C has changed extended thread context. >> Context saved before executing ISR: 841C4380. Context saved after >> executing ISR: 841C5040. > > So along with the two questions raised on IRC (Intel vs AMD CPU > and whether in your successful testing the XSA-52 and -53 fixes > were included), would it be possible to get the contents of the > two memory blocks pointed to (assuming you have a dump from > that crash)? I'd like to be certain that the situation is the same as > earlier, i.e. both selector fields are holding zero in the "after" > incarnation, as I still can't see what's wrong with the new code. Mark and I are out until Monday (US holiday) - but I'll put this on my list to follow up on then. > >> It looks like we lost the fix for the XSAVE/XRSTOR" > > If the above doesn't help, I may need to hand you a debugging > patch, mainly to see whether the current guest word size > determination is wrong in any way (as that's the main thing that > changed from the version you tested to the one that got checked > in, yet I continue to only see this as an improvement, not as > something that could have broken things). Ok. Happy to test a debug patch, as well. Ben > > Jan >