[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] 2.0-testing.bk
What changeset should we be up to? I'm currently running 1.1666 which you committed yesterday evening. Frustrated that xm save for freebsd would give me: (XEN) DOM0: (file=memory.c, line=425) Non-privileged attempt to map I/O space 00000000 I tried 'xm save 0 foo' - which I'm not sure should be allowed - and saw the following: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000000 printing eip: c0298b6a *pde = ma 00000000 pa 55555000 [<c01069f3>] __do_suspend+0x43/0x1e0 [<c0117906>] __wake_up+0x46/0xa0 [<c012b96f>] worker_thread+0x22f/0x340 [<c0106c60>] __shutdown_handler+0x0/0x50 [<c0117840>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x20 [<c0117840>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x20 [<c012b740>] worker_thread+0x0/0x340 [<c013009a>] kthread+0xaa/0xb0 [<c012fff0>] kthread+0x0/0xb0 [<c01076b5>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0x10 Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT DEBUG_PAGEALLOC Modules linked in: CPU: 0 EIP: 0061:[<c0298b6a>] Not tainted VLI EFLAGS: 00011296 (2.6.10-xen0) EIP is at netif_suspend+0xa/0x40 eax: fbffc000 ebx: 00000000 ecx: 00000001 edx: ce57e000 esi: c0101000 edi: c05e8000 ebp: 00000000 esp: c05e9f0c ds: 007b es: 007b ss: 0069 Process events/0 (pid: 3, threadinfo=c05e8000 task=c05cbb20) Stack: c013c69f c043ef40 c01069f3 c05e9f40 c0117906 c05caf10 00002a8a 2e981339 00004a2e ce57e000 c043ef40 00000000 c05e8000 00000000 c012b96f 00000000 c05e9f74 00000000 c05caf10 c05e8000 c05e8000 c0106c60 c05e8000 c05caf00 Call Trace: [<c013c69f>] __get_free_pages+0x1f/0x40 [<c01069f3>] __do_suspend+0x43/0x1e0 [<c0117906>] __wake_up+0x46/0xa0 [<c012b96f>] worker_thread+0x22f/0x340 [<c0106c60>] __shutdown_handler+0x0/0x50 [<c0117840>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x20 [<c0117840>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x20 [<c012b740>] worker_thread+0x0/0x340 [<c013009a>] kthread+0xaa/0xb0 [<c012fff0>] kthread+0x0/0xb0 [<c01076b5>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0x10 Code: 89 54 24 10 8b 5c 24 04 8b 7c 24 08 83 c4 0c e9 3d f7 ff ff 90 8d b6 00 00 00 8d bf 00 00 00 00 53 83 ec 04 8b 1d 40 bc 53 c0 <8b> 03 0f 18 00 90 81 f 0 bc 53 c0 74 20 90 8d b4 26 00 00 00 Why does xen think that an unprivileged guest has a reference to address 0 with the valid bit set? -Kip On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Keir Fraser wrote: > > Is it just me, or is the INSTALL_DIR definition in the Makefile > > completely bogus? > > > > make install-kernels > > > > fails on: > > > > cp -a install -d -m0755/boot/* /boot/ > > > > Changing INSTALL_DIR to the earlier definition fixed it for me. > > > > Nik > > Some of the recent build system 'cleanups' were broken. I've just done > some testing and sanitisation. > > -- Keir > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting > Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time > by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. > Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |