[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Doamin crash when trying to install disk encryption (PointSec) on Windows HVM
At 14:34 +0100 on 22 Apr (1240410866), Keir Fraser wrote: > It could be an issue with the vm86 acceleration, possibly. I'm pretty sure > the guest would have to IRET from protected mode to enter vm86 mode itself, > and we don't emulate that. Tim: what would we need to do to disable the vm86 > acceleration for testing purposes? You suggested not setting VM86_TSS param > from hvmloader, but I couldn't convince myself what effect that would > actually have as the logic in Xen is non-trivial. Yes; if HVM_PARAM_VM86_TSS is zero, vmx_set_segment_register() will always set the tss bit in the bitmap of segments that aren't safe to enter VM86 with. Tim. > > -- Keir > > On 22/04/2009 14:23, "Tom Rotenberg" <tom.rotenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Tim, > > > > so what does it mean? could it be that we have a bug in the real mode > > emulation, which causes the segment state to be invalid (maybe it's because > > of > > a bug in the patch that Keir made for me, which emulated the LLDT, and the > > LTR > > instructions)? > > > > Keir suggested to trace back where the problem (segment state) occured, and > > from there to try and find the bug which caused it. Do u have any better > > suggestion for solving this? > > > > Tom > > > > 2009/4/22 Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> At 13:39 +0100 on 22 Apr (1240407546), Tom Rotenberg wrote: > >>> Keir, > >>> > >>> I have tried your latest patch, and it looks like now it passes the > >>> emulation problem. However, now the domain crashes with the following > >>> error: > >>> > >>> (XEN) HVM1: Booting from 0000:7c00 > >>> (XEN) Failed vm entry (exit reason 0x80000021) caused by invalid guest > >>> state > >>> (0). > >>> (XEN) ************* VMCS Area ************** > >>> (XEN) *** Guest State *** > >>> (XEN) CR0: actual=0x0000000080010039, shadow=0x0000000080000019, > >>> gh_mask=ffffffffffffffff > >>> (XEN) CR4: actual=0x0000000000002060, shadow=0x0000000000000000, > >>> gh_mask=ffffffffffffffff > >>> (XEN) CR3: actual=0x000000000a213a20, target_count=0 > >>> (XEN) target0=0000000000000000, target1=0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) target2=0000000000000000, target3=0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) RSP = 0x0000000000000080 (0x0000000000000080) RIP = > >>> 0x000000000000002a (0x000000000000002a) > >>> (XEN) RFLAGS=0x0000000000023202 (0x0000000000023202) DR7 = > >>> 0x0000000000000400 > >> > >> Looks like we're trying to VMENTER in virtual 8086 mode but without > >> tidying up the segment state. That could either be the guest entering > >> virtual 8086 mode itself or Xen entering vitrual 8086 mode to emulate > >> real mode, but Xen is always careful to make the segment state agree > >> with Intel's rather strict requrements when it does that. > >> > >> Tim. > >> > >> > >>> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=0000000000000000 CS:RIP=0000:0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) CS: sel=0x0060, attr=0x0c09b, limit=0xffffffff, > >>> base=0x0000000000200000 > >>> (XEN) DS: sel=0x0068, attr=0x0c093, limit=0xffffffff, > >>> base=0x0000000000200000 > >>> (XEN) SS: sel=0x0070, attr=0x0c093, limit=0xfc000fff, > >>> base=0x000000000020ba62 > >>> (XEN) ES: sel=0x0068, attr=0x0c093, limit=0xffffffff, > >>> base=0x0000000000200000 > >>> (XEN) FS: sel=0x0068, attr=0x0c093, limit=0xffffffff, > >>> base=0x0000000000200000 > >>> (XEN) GS: sel=0x0068, attr=0x0c093, limit=0xffffffff, > >>> base=0x0000000000200000 > >>> (XEN) GDTR: limit=0x00001dd8, > >>> base=0x0000000000200000 > >>> (XEN) LDTR: sel=0x0000, attr=0x1c000, limit=0xffffffff, > >>> base=0x0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) IDTR: limit=0x00000188, > >>> base=0x0000000000201df0 > >>> (XEN) TR: sel=0x0058, attr=0x0008b, limit=0x0000ffff, > >>> base=0x0000000000201ff2 > >>> (XEN) Guest PAT = 0x0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) TSC Offset = ffffffe4920110b7 > >>> (XEN) DebugCtl=0000000000000000 DebugExceptions=0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) Interruptibility=0001 ActivityState=0000 > >>> (XEN) *** Host State *** > >>> (XEN) RSP = 0xffff83007e4f7fa0 RIP = 0xffff828c8019aa20 > >>> (XEN) CS=e008 DS=0000 ES=0000 FS=0000 GS=0000 SS=0000 TR=e040 > >>> (XEN) FSBase=0000000000000000 GSBase=0000000000000000 > >>> TRBase=ffff828c802a8b00 > >>> (XEN) GDTBase=ffff83007e9a3000 IDTBase=ffff83007e62e010 > >>> (XEN) CR0=0000000080050033 CR3=000000007cfdc000 CR4=00000000000026f0 > >>> (XEN) Sysenter RSP=ffff83007e4f7fd0 CS:RIP=e008:ffff828c801c7290 > >>> (XEN) Host PAT = 0x0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) *** Control State *** > >>> (XEN) PinBased=0000003f CPUBased=b6a1e7fe SecondaryExec=00000041 > >>> (XEN) EntryControls=000011ff ExitControls=0003efff > >>> (XEN) ExceptionBitmap=00044080 > >>> (XEN) VMEntry: intr_info=80000b0b errcode=00001eac ilen=00000000 > >>> (XEN) VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00008000 ilen=00000000 > >>> (XEN) reason=80000021 qualification=00000000 > >>> (XEN) IDTVectoring: info=00000000 errcode=00000000 > >>> (XEN) TPR Threshold = 0x00 > >>> (XEN) EPT pointer = 0x0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) Virtual processor ID = 0x0000 > >>> (XEN) ************************************** > >>> (XEN) domain_crash called from vmx.c:2218 > >>> (XEN) Domain 1 (vcpu#0) crashed on cpu#1: > >>> (XEN) ----[ Xen-3.4.0-rc3-pre x86_64 debug=n Not tainted ]---- > >>> (XEN) CPU: 1 > >>> (XEN) RIP: 0060:[<000000000000002a>] > >>> (XEN) RFLAGS: 0000000000023202 CONTEXT: hvm guest > >>> (XEN) rax: 0000000000000007 rbx: 0000000000001490 rcx: > >>> 0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) rdx: 0000000000001da8 rsi: 0000000000000000 rdi: > >>> 0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) rbp: 0000000000008ebf rsp: 0000000000000080 r8: > >>> 0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) r9: 0000000000000000 r10: 0000000000000000 r11: > >>> 0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) r12: 0000000000000000 r13: 0000000000000000 r14: > >>> 0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) r15: 0000000000000000 cr0: 0000000080000019 cr4: > >>> 0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) cr3: 0000000001443000 cr2: 0000000000000000 > >>> (XEN) ds: 0068 es: 0068 fs: 0068 gs: 0068 ss: 0070 cs: 0060 > >>> > >>> Could it be, that the real mode emulation code has a bug? What does this > >>> error means? > >>> > >>> Tom > >>> > >>> 2009/4/22 Keir Fraser > >>> <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> > >>> On 22/04/2009 12:18, "Tom Rotenberg" > >>> <tom.rotenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:tom.rotenberg@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Keir, > >>>> > >>>> I have applied your patch, and it seemed to work. However, the domain > >>>> still > >>>> crashes, and now it looks like it's because of the 'LTR' instruction. > >>> > >>> Try the attached patch. It replaces the one I sent last time, and emulates > >>> both LLDT and LTR. > >>> > >>> -- Keir > >>> > >> > >> Content-Description: ATT00001.txt > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Xen-devel mailing list > >>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Principal Software Engineer, Citrix Systems (R&D) Ltd. > >> [Company #02300071, SL9 0DZ, UK.] > > > > -- Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> Principal Software Engineer, Citrix Systems (R&D) Ltd. [Company #02300071, SL9 0DZ, UK.] _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |