[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Xen 4.1 maintenance? (Was Re: [xen-4.1.6.1] SIGSEGV libxc/xc_save_domain.c: p2m_size >> configured_ram_size)
On 13/06/16 12:14, Philipp Hahn wrote: > Am 13.06.2016 um 12:15 schrieb George Dunlap: >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Philipp Hahn <hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> while trying to live migrate some VMs from an xen-4.1.6.1 host "xc_save" >>> crashes with a segmentation fault in tools/libxc/xc_domain_save.c:1141 >>>> /* >>>> * Quick belt and braces sanity check. >>>> */ >>>> for ( i = 0; i < dinfo->p2m_size; i++ ) >>>> { >>>> mfn = pfn_to_mfn(i); >>>> if( (mfn != INVALID_P2M_ENTRY) && (mfn_to_pfn(mfn) != i) ) >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> due to a de-reference through >>>> #define pfn_to_mfn(_pfn) \ >>>> ((xen_pfn_t) ((dinfo->guest_width==8) \ >>>> ? (((uint64_t *)ctx->live_p2m)[(_pfn)]) \ >>>> : ((((uint32_t *)ctx->live_p2m)[(_pfn)]) == 0xffffffffU \ >>>> ? (-1UL) : (((uint32_t *)ctx->live_p2m)[(_pfn)])))) > ... >> Given that 4.1 is long out of support, we won't be making a proper fix >> in-tree (since it will never be released). > > I know that 4.1 is EOL. > I'm aware of Ubuntu still having xen-4.1 in one of their LTS versions > (Precise) and its also in Debian-oldstable, which a lot people (us > included) still use. I would prefer to update, but I can for reasons > outside my direct control. > > I'm already working with Stefan Bader from Canonical to backport most of > the XSAs to 4.1, so there already exists a "better" version outside of > the official Xen repositories. Philipp / Stefan -- if there really is a large following of people still using 4.1, would it make sense to have one or both of you step up and maintain an official branch on xenbits? -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |