[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] HVM domains crash after upgrade from XEN 4.5.1 to 4.5.2
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 01:39:08PM -0600, Doug Goldstein wrote: > On 11/16/15 1:25 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:16:33PM +0100, Atom2 wrote: > >> > >> > >> Am 16.11.15 um 16:31 schrieb Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk: > >>>>>> Your analysis was absolutely spot on. After re-thinking this for a > >>>>>> moment, I thought going down that route first would make a lot of sense > >>>>>> as PV guests still do work and one of the differences to HVM domUs is > >>>>>> that the former do _not_ require SeaBIOS. Looking at my log files of > >>>>>> installed packages confirmed an upgrade from SeaBIOS 1.7.5 to 1.8.2 in > >>>>>> the relevant timeframe which obviously had not made it to the hvmloader > >>>>>> of xen-4.5.1 as I did not re-compile xen after the upgrade of SeaBIOS. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So I re-compiled xen-4.5.1 (obviously now using the installed SeaBIOS > >>>>>> 1.8.2) and the same error as with xen-4.5.2 popped up - and that seemed > >>>>>> to strongly indicate that there indeed might be an issue with SeaBIOS > >>>>>> as > >>>>>> this probably was the only variable that had changed from the original > >>>>>> install of xen-4.5.1. > >>> I recall seeing this way back in Fedora 20 days. I narrowed it down the > >>> SeaBIOS version that was a standalone package to not have CONFIG_XEN. > >>> > >>> Having that fixed in the SeaBIOS package fixed it. > >> Hi Konrad, Doug, Andrew (specifically added to this part of the thread)! > >> Konrad, you might have found an interesting point. I did have a look at the > >> ebuild for the failing version and in there I found the following comment: > >> ====== comment from ebuild ======= > >> # Upstream hasn't released a new binary. We snipe ours from Fedora for > >> now. > >> # http://code.coreboot.org/p/seabios/downloads/get/bios.bin-${PV}.gz > >> ====== end comment from ebuild ======= > >> which might in fact underline that there might be an issue similar to what > >> you described above. > >> > >> What is also pretty interesting is the fact that the old (working) SeaBIOS > >> version 1.7.5 installed as "bios.bin" under /usr/share/seabios is actually > >> 262.144 bytes in size whereas the new (invalid) SeaBIOS 1.8.2 installed in > >> the same location is only half as big: 131.072 bytes. > >> > >> I checked at the download site and the 1.8.2 binary version is indeed not > >> available from http://code.coreboot.org/p/seabios/downloads/. But both the > >> binary versions for 1.7.5 and 1.8.0 are available and both are acutually > >> 262.144 bytes in size, so I'd be very surprised if the 1.8.2 version is > >> really only half that size. By the way, the old working version (according > >> to the ebuild) was directly downloaded from the above url and also shows an > >> identical SHA1 digest to that version available for download there. > > > > <blinks>I thought Gentoo was all about rebuilding from source and not > > taking binary blobs. > > So since SeaBIOS and friends (the blobs) are so sensitive to compilers > and environments and to avoid as much problems for people as possible. I > setup the ebuilds in Gentoo to grab the binary blobs by default and if > the user disabled the binary option it would build from source. The idea > was that Fedora doesn't ship any blobs that can't be rebuilt so I would > follow so the same approach and even use their built blobs. But it > appears to be that there are definitely differences between what QEMU > needs/uses and what upstream ships. > > Its pretty common for saying Gentoo is about building from source but > really its about user choice. Aaah! Thank you for educating me! > > That said I haven't been maintaining these for some time now and I've > looked at the state of the way that SeaBIOS and friends are built and I > believe there's an issue and I intend on remedying things soon to avoid > issues like this. Woot! > > >> > >> To me this looks as if something is really wrong here. If anybody of you > >> has > >> access to a 1.8.2 version, could you please confirm whether there's really > >> that big a size difference between the 1.7.5 and the 1.8.2 versions? Or is > >> that difference probably attributable to the missing CONFIG_XEN option? > > > > It may be other options too - like CONFIG_XHCI, or a huge amount of other > > ones. > > Yes. There's definitely differences. > > >> > >> Andrew: I havent't gotten around to run the debug version of the hypervisor > >> again, but if the current suspicion turns out to be true, there's probably > >> not much value in that anyways. Would you agree? > > > > I am not Andrew and can't really speak for him, but I am going to take a > > leap here and say he will agree with you. > > > > > -- > Doug Goldstein > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |