Re: [Xen-devel] Problem with Xen 4.5 failing XTF tests on old AMD cpus ?

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 21/09/16 17:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Platform Team regression test user writes ("[xen-4.5-testing baseline-only test] 
> 67737: regressions - FAIL"):
> > test-xtf-amd64-amd64-1 19 xtf/test-hvm32-invlpg~shadow fail REGR. vs. 67706
> > test-xtf-amd64-amd64-1 26 xtf/test-hvm32pae-invlpg~shadow fail REGR. vs. 67706
> Several of these, 32bit and 64bit HVM.  This is in the Citrix
> Cambridge osstest instance.  The Xen Project colo instance is
> unaffected (flight 101045 there passed with the same revisions of
> everything)
>
> This is with:
>
>    xen e4ae4b03d35babc9624b7286f1ea4c6749bad84b
>    xtf b5c5332de4268d33a6f8eadc1d17c7b9cf0e7dc3
>    linux b65f2f457c49b2cfd7967c34b7a0b04c25587f13
>    linux-firmware c530a75c1e6a472b0eb9558310b518f0dfcd8860
>
> The log says this:
>
>    2016-09-21 06:07:36 Z ---------- substep 19 xtf/test-hvm32-invlpg~shadow 
> running ----------
>    2016-09-21 06:07:36 Z executing ssh ... root@10.80.228.78                 
> /home/xtf/xtf-runner -m logfile test-hvm32-invlpg~shadow 1>&2; echo $?
>
>    Using logfile '/var/log/xen/console/guest-test-hvm32-invlpg~shadow.log'
>    Executing 'xl create -F tests/invlpg/test-hvm32-invlpg~shadow.cfg'
>    --- Xen Test Framework ---
>    Environment: HVM 32bit (No paging)
>    Testing 'invlpg' in normally-faulting conditions
>      Test: Mapped address
>      Test: Unmapped address
>      Test: NULL segment override
>      Test: Past segment limit
>        Fail: Unexpected #GP[0000]
>      Test: Before expand-down segment limit
>        Fail: Unexpected #GP[0000]
>    Test result: FAILURE
>
>    Combined test results:
>    test-hvm32-invlpg~shadow                 FAILURE
>
> Sadly we haven't yet managed to make the logs from this instance
> public.
>
> Do you have any idea what might be causing this ?  Is there a real
> problem with the Xen 4.5 branch ?  The Citrix Cambridge instance has
> old hardware.
This is the 4.5 tree missing some fixes:

* 31d961f - x86/hvm: Fix invalidation for emulated invlpg instructions 
(4 months ago) <Andrew Cooper>
* eee511d - x86/svm: Don't unconditionally use a new ASID in 
svm_invlpg_intercept() (4 months ago) <Andrew Cooper>
* a373db2 - x86/hvm: Correct the emulated interaction of invlpg with 
segments (4 months ago) <Andrew Cooper>
* a94b35d - x86/hvm: Raise #SS faults for %ss-based segmentation 
violations (4 months ago) <Andrew Cooper>
* 6093515 - x86/hvm: Always return the linear address from 
hvm_virtual_to_linear_addr() (4 months ago) <Andrew Cooper>
In this case, XTF is complaining that `invlpg`, as used in a shadow 
guest, is not behaving in the architecturally specified way.
~Andrew

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