Re: [Xen-devel] debian stretch dom0 + xen 4.9 fails to boot

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul,

On 06/06/17 16:51, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 06 June 2017 16:11
> > To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: xen-devel (xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) <xen-
> > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] debian stretch dom0 + xen 4.9 fails to boot
> >
> > > > > On 06.06.17 at 16:32, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I've been having fun setting up a new test rig...
> > >
> > > I have a skull canyon NUC and I put debian stretch (rc4) on it (so that's a
> > > 4.9 kernel) and then tried building and installing the latest Xen staging-4.9
> > > code. The system failed to boot... basically it got stuck before even
> > > managing to get sufficiently into Xen to spit out anything on the console.
> > > Xen 4.8 OTOH booted just fine so I started bisecting and after 14 iterations
> > > I got down to the following commit is being the problem:
> > >
> > > commit c0655e492e6b33e26ec9cd33f59725d0db89cdd0
> > > Author: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Date:   Fri Mar 24 14:18:54 2017 +0100
> > >
> > >     x86: split boot trampoline into permanent and temporary part
> > >
> > >     The hypervisor needs a trampoline in low memory for early boot and
> > >     later for bringing up cpus and during wakeup from suspend. Today this
> > >     trampoline is kept completely even if most of it isn't needed later.
> > >
> > >     Split the trampoline into a permanent part and a temporary part needed
> > >     at early boot only. Introduce a new entry at the boundary.
> > >
> > >     Reduce the stack for wakeup code in order for the permanent
> > >     trampoline to fit in a single page. 4k of stack seems excessive, about
> > >     3k should be more than enough.
> > >
> > >     Add an ASSERT() to the linker script to ensure the wakeup stack is
> > >     always at least 3k.
> > >
> > >     Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> > >     Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > To verify this I checked out master, reverted that commit, and tried again.
> > > The NUC still booted fine.
> > Well, interesting, but I don't think it is very realistic to expect any
> > fix with just the information you supply. There must be something
> > rather special about that system, and likely it would help if we
> > knew what that is. E.g. an unusual E820 map. Worse would be if
> > they used memory outside of properly marked E820 regions in a
> > way colliding with what we do.
> >
> > Otherwise I'm afraid we need to hope for you to debug the issue.
> Yes, I was posting this more a heads-up for the moment, so that 4.9 does not go 
> out with this regression.
I would have appreciated to be CCed in this e-mail as this concern 4.9 
release... Please take the habit to CC the release manager for anything 
targeting a release.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

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