Re: [linux-linus test] 171361: regressions - FAIL

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 27/06/2022 08:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 27.06.2022 03:38, osstest service owner wrote:
> > flight 171361 linux-linus real [real]
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/171361/
> >
> > Regressions :-(
> >
> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> > including tests which could not be run:
> >   test-amd64-amd64-dom0pvh-xl-intel  8 xen-boot            fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ws16-amd64  8 xen-boot         fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64  8 xen-boot         fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-pygrub       8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-freebsd11-amd64  8 xen-boot             fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-dom0pvh-xl-amd  8 xen-boot              fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-amd  8 xen-boot            fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64  8 xen-boot         fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-ws16-amd64  8 xen-boot         fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-debianhvm-i386-xsm  8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-i386-xsm  8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64  8 xen-boot         fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-xl-xsm       8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 171277
> >   test-amd64-amd64-xl           8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 171277
> At the example of this:
>
> Jun 26 21:51:47.667404 mapping kernel into physical memory
> Jun 26 21:51:47.667425 about to get started...
> Jun 26 21:51:47.667435 (XEN) arch/x86/mm.c:2159:d0v0 Bad L1 flags 400000
> Jun 26 21:51:47.667448 (XEN) Hardware Dom0 halted: halting machine
>
> This is an attempt to install (modify?) a PTE with _PAGE_GNTTAB set
> via normal page table management hypercalls. Considering how early in
> the boot process this appears to be, I wonder whether a flag was
> introduced in the kernel which aliases _PAGE_GNTTAB (or a use of such
> a pre-existing flag on a path which previously was safe from being hit
> when running in PV mode under Xen).
>
> I wonder if the bisector is already having a go at isolating the
> offending commit, or whether it had already failed in trying to.
I saw the same issues in my testing. Manually bisection poiunted to:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/22d07a44c80d8e8e1e82b9a806ddc8c6bbb2606e.1654759036.git.jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx/

This is meant to be fixed by:

https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/20220623094608.7294-1-jgross@xxxxxxxx/

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall