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] kexec woes with 32-bit secondary kernel

>>> On 17.09.10 at 18:57, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 16:49 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: 
>> Ever since c/s 13829, the native (32-bit -> 32-bit) call to invoke the
>> secondary kernel has been missing its fourth argument. Apparently
>> this worked out because the respective stack location was non-zero.
> Which argument is this? 

The cpu_has_pae one.

>> Starting with Linux 2.6.27 (32-bit) and 2.6.30 (64-bit) a new
>> argument is being expected by the secondary kernel, and again
>> apparently out of pure luck the 64-bit -> 64-bit case still appears
>> to work for those of our customers who want to use it.
>> The question really is whether this code has ever been tested
>> with sufficiently recent kernels in all three variants (32->32, 64->64,
>> and 64->32).
> It gets pretty regular testing in XenServer and XCP in the
> 32on64->32native variant. This works at least with the 2.6.27 and 2.6.32
> domain 0 kernels used in those two situations.

Hmm, that contradicts what we got told: Neither 32->32native
nor 32on64->32native work. But surely it working for you can be
a simple matter of luck with the compiler version you're using
(pretty likely different from the ones used for SLE).

> I can't speak for any testing done elsewhere though. I suspect that
> other than what you guys do there isn't that much of it.
>> While it seems that putting together a patch to address this
>> shouldn't be that difficult, a second question is how we can avoid
>> getting into the same situation again when Linux extends the
>> protocol again.
> I've always thought that the hypercall interface is rather too closely
> modelled on internals of a particular implementation from a particular
> version of Linux. On the other hand I'm not sure I have any better
> ideas.

Yeah, I agree with both parts. Probably some sort of signature
of the called code would have helped.


Xen-devel mailing list