Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 11/12] xenctx: Dump registers via hvm info if available.

[Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/07/13 03:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 06.11.13 at 21:08, Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -931,7 +1174,44 @@ static void dump_ctx(int vcpu, guest_word_t mem_addr, 
> > guest_word_t stk_addr)
> >   #endif
> >       } else {
> >           if (!stk_addr) {
> > -            print_ctx(&ctx);
> > +#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
> > +            if (xenctx.dominfo.hvm && ctxt_word_size == 8) {
> > +                if (guest_word_size == 4) {
> > +                    if ((((uint32_t)ctx.x64.user_regs.eip) != cpuctx.rip) ||
> > +                        (((uint32_t)ctx.x64.user_regs.esp) != cpuctx.rsp) ||
> > +                        (((uint32_t)ctx.x64.ctrlreg[3]) != cpuctx.cr3)) {
> > +                        fprintf(stderr, "Regs mismatch ip=%llx vs %llx sp=%llx vs 
> > %llx cr3=%llx vs %llx\n",
> > +                                (long long)((uint32_t)ctx.x64.user_regs.eip),
> > +                                (long long)cpuctx.rip,
> > +                                (long long)((uint32_t)ctx.x64.user_regs.esp),
> > +                                (long long)cpuctx.rsp,
> > +                                (long long)((uint32_t)ctx.x64.ctrlreg[3]),
> > +                                (long long)cpuctx.cr3);
> > +                        fprintf(stdout, "=============Regs mismatch 
> > start=============\n");
> > +                        print_ctx(&ctx);
> > +                        fprintf(stdout, "=============Regs mismatch 
> > end=============\n");
> > +                    }
> > +                } else {
> > +                    if ((ctx.x64.user_regs.eip != cpuctx.rip) ||
> > +                        (ctx.x64.user_regs.esp != cpuctx.rsp) ||
> > +                        (ctx.x64.ctrlreg[3] != cpuctx.cr3)) {
> > +                        fprintf(stderr, "Regs mismatch ip=%llx vs %llx sp=%llx vs 
> > %llx cr3=%llx vs %llx\n",
> > +                                (long long)ctx.x64.user_regs.eip,
> > +                                (long long)cpuctx.rip,
> > +                                (long long)ctx.x64.user_regs.esp,
> > +                                (long long)cpuctx.rsp,
> > +                                (long long)ctx.x64.ctrlreg[3],
> > +                                (long long)cpuctx.cr3);
> > +                        fprintf(stdout, "=============Regs mismatch 
> > start=============\n");
> > +                        print_ctx(&ctx);
> > +                        fprintf(stdout, "=============Regs mismatch 
> > end=============\n");
> > +                    }
> > +                }
> > +                print_cpuctx(&cpuctx);
> > +            }
> > +            else
> > +#endif
> > +                print_ctx(&ctx);
> Apart from Andrew's comments, which I agree with - most of the
> additions above clearly don't belong here: This is not a diagnostic
> utility.
Fine with me, I will drop this part. I added during the time (~2010-2011) when I 
was looking at a DomU that was crashed.  What I remember about this DomU was that 
vCPU 1 was offline and vCPU 0 was the crash cause and vCPU 2 & 3 where in the 
code to go offline. The routine xc_domain_hvm_getcontext_partial() was returning 
vCPU 2's data when asked for vCPU 1 (via instance == 1).  This is the key reason I 
did the code in patch #12 (basically a way to call 
xc_domain_hvm_getcontext_partial() and xc_vcpu_getcontext() with different args).  
At the time I was not working on full xen code, just changing xenctx the help me 
out as needed.  Looking at the code now, I do not understand how this could happen.
    -Don Slutz
> Jan

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