Re: [Xen-devel] So I tried to use xentrace...

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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