Re: [Xen-devel] XSAVE/XRSTOR crash resurgence in 4.3

[Mark Roddy <mark.roddy@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The dump looks the same to me as before the last fix.

From the crash dump:

Interrupt Service Routine A30BC91C has changed extended thread context.
Context saved before executing ISR: 841C4380. Context saved after executing 
ISR: 841C5040.

0: kd> dd 841C4380
841c4380  4020027f 00000000 6cad20e4 0000001b
841c4390  01a85588 00000023 00001f80 0000ffff
0: kd> dd 841C5040
841c5040  4020027f 00000000 6cad20e4 00000000
841c5050  01a85588 00000000 00001f80 0000ffff



-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Guthro [mailto:ben.guthro@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 9:25 AM
To: Jan Beulich
Cc: Ben Guthro; Mark Roddy; xen-devel
Subject: Re: XSAVE/XRSTOR crash resurgence in 4.3

On Jul 4, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> On 03.07.13 at 16:02, Ben Guthro <ben@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel