This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Xen-users] boot a existing windows in hvm domain

To: Brady Chen <chenchp@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Xen-users] boot a existing windows in hvm domain
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:35:24 +0100
Cc: tygrawy@xxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Z24 <z24@xxxxxxx>, AL.LINUX@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:33:17 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C2DDFA11.13AD3%keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcfY1XjRt3+hqkTIEdyCkgAX8io7RQAAM7Wn
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Re: [Xen-users] boot a existing windows in hvm domain
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
On 7/8/07 10:29, "Keir Fraser" <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> What would be useful is to try to add tracing to see how far vmxassist gets
> after its last line of tracing before the trap occurs. That last line is
> currently from vm86.c, line 620. You might try adding extra printf()
> statements imemdiately after the write16() on line 622, and also at the top
> of the opcode() function. We need to find out at what point vmxassist is
> jumping to this bogus address d0800.

Oh, another possibility is that vmxassist has been corrupted in memory. This
is particularly likely because, according to the objdump, the 'instruction'
that starts at d0800 is actually valid (it'd be an ADD of some sort).

So, within trap() you might want to read say 16 bytes starting at 0xd0800
and printf() them. So we can see if they match what objdump says should be

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>