Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 25689: regressions - FAIL

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 31.03.14 at 22:45, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/31/2014 04:25 PM, xen.org wrote:
>> flight 25689 xen-unstable real [real]
>> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/25689/ 
>>
>> Regressions :-(
>>
>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>> including tests which could not be run:
>>   test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-intel  7 redhat-install    fail REGR. vs. 
>> 25685
>>   test-amd64-i386-qemut-rhel6hvm-amd  7 redhat-install      fail REGR. vs. 
>> 25685
>>   test-amd64-i386-xl-winxpsp3-vcpus1 12 guest-localmigrate.2 fail REGR. vs. 
>> 25685
>>   test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  7 windows-install      fail REGR. vs. 
>> 25685
>>   test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-winxpsp3-vcpus1 7 windows-install fail REGR. vs. 
>> 25685
>>   test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64  7 windows-install   fail REGR. vs. 
>> 25685
>>   test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  7 windows-install     fail REGR. vs. 
>> 25685
>>   test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-win7-amd64  7 windows-install    fail REGR. vs. 
>> 25685
> 
> I was just about to report a regression that may be what these failures 
> also are.
> 
> Looks like 8bad6c562 (x86/HVM: fix preemption handling in do_hvm_op() ) 
> broke qemu-traditional with HVM guests. Quite a few of
> 
> (XEN) hvm.c:2762:d25v0 guest attempted write to read-only memory page. 
> gfn=0x102, mfn=0x239086

I can see the change to be broken on 32-bit control domains (i.e.
Dom0 here), but I can't explain the breakage on 64-bit ones yet, nor
why only qemu-trad would be affected. Still this is enough reason for
me to revert it for the time being (and I can't really see how to
address the 32-bit issue without imposing further restrictions on the
permissible ranges for these sub-hypercalls).

Jan


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