[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] crash on boot with 4.6.1 on fedora 24
On 10/05/16 18:35, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 05/10/2016 11:43 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 10/05/16 17:35, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 10.05.16 at 17:19, <JGross@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 10/05/16 15:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10.05.16 at 15:39, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> I didn't finish unwrapping the stack yesterday. Here it is: >>>>>> >>>>>> setup_arch -> dmi_scan_machine -> dmi_walk_early -> early_ioremap >>>>> Ah, that makes sense. Yet why would early_ioremap() involve an >>>>> M2P lookup? As said, MMIO addresses shouldn't be subject to such >>>>> lookups. >>>> early_ioremap()-> >>>> __early_ioremap()-> >>>> __early_set_fixmap()-> >>>> set_pte()-> >>>> xen_set_pte_init()-> >>>> mask_rw_pte()-> >>>> pte_pfn()-> >>>> pte_val()-> >>>> xen_pte_val()-> >>>> pte_mfn_to_pfn() >>> Well, I understand (also from Boris' first reply) that's how it is, >>> but not why it is so. I.e. the call flow above doesn't answer my >>> question. >> On x86 early_ioremap() and early_memremap() share a common sub-function >> __early_ioremap(). This together with pvops requires a common set_pte() >> implementation leading to the mfn validation in the end. > > Do we make any assumptions about where DMI data lives? I don't think so. So the basic problem is the page fault due to the sparse m2p map before the #PF handler is registered. What do you think about registering a minimal #PF handler in xen_arch_setup() being capable to handle this problem? This should be doable without major problems. I can do a patch. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |