| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] So I tried to use xentrace...
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
(XEN) ----[ Xen-4.1-unstable x86_64 debug=y Not tainted ]----
(XEN) CPU: 1
(XEN) RIP: e008:[<ffff82c4801215b3>] check_lock+0x1b/0x45
This suggests the problem is with misusing a lock in the wrong interrupt
context, rather than anything to do with sizes.
Except that, it works for me if I use -S 32, and doesn't if I use -S 512
(on my 2-core box, equivalent # of pages to -S 256 on your 4-core box).
:-) Try it, I suspect it will work.
Also:
* It's a page fault with a null pointer, not a bugcheck. In a non-debug
build, it will crash in spin_lock instead of check_lock.
* The fault is in the MMU update hypercall; I believe done when xentrace
tries to map garbage pages or invalid MFNs.
* This is the exact bug we were getting in product, and the
bounds-checking fixed it.
Hmm... the bounds checking should be working. The maximum index is
meant to be 2048 (2 pages = 8k, / sizeof(uint32_t) = 2048), and the
maximum index for you is 1088, well within the t_info size. Hmm...
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home