Re: [xen-unstable-smoke test] 171511: regressions - FAIL

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 06.07.2022 05:39, osstest service owner wrote:
> flight 171511 xen-unstable-smoke real [real]
> flight 171517 xen-unstable-smoke real-retest [real]
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/171511/
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/171517/
> 
> Regressions :-(
> 
> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> including tests which could not be run:
>  test-arm64-arm64-xl-xsm       8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 
> 171486

Looking at what's under test, I guess ...

> commit 8d410ac2c178e1dd1001cadddbe9ca75a9738c95
> Author: Demi Marie Obenour <demi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Tue Jul 5 13:10:46 2022 +0200
> 
>     EFI: preserve the System Resource Table for dom0
>     
>     The EFI System Resource Table (ESRT) is necessary for fwupd to identify
>     firmware updates to install.  According to the UEFI specification §23.4,
>     the ESRT shall be stored in memory of type EfiBootServicesData.  However,
>     memory of type EfiBootServicesData is considered general-purpose memory
>     by Xen, so the ESRT needs to be moved somewhere where Xen will not
>     overwrite it.  Copy the ESRT to memory of type EfiRuntimeServicesData,
>     which Xen will not reuse.  dom0 can use the ESRT if (and only if) it is
>     in memory of type EfiRuntimeServicesData.
>     
>     Earlier versions of this patch reserved the memory in which the ESRT was
>     located.  This created awkward alignment problems, and required either
>     splitting the E820 table or wasting memory.  It also would have required
>     a new platform op for dom0 to use to indicate if the ESRT is reserved.
>     By copying the ESRT into EfiRuntimeServicesData memory, the E820 table
>     does not need to be modified, and dom0 can just check the type of the
>     memory region containing the ESRT.  The copy is only done if the ESRT is
>     not already in EfiRuntimeServicesData memory, avoiding memory leaks on
>     repeated kexec.
>     
>     See https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/20200818184018.GN1679@mail-itl/T/
>     for details.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Demi Marie Obenour <demi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

... this is the most likely candidate, considering in the log all we
see is:

Xen 4.17-unstable (c/s Mon Jun 27 15:15:39 2022 +0200 git:61ff273322-dirty) EFI 
loader
Jul  5 23:09:15.692859 Using configuration file 'xen.cfg'
Jul  5 23:09:15.704878 vmlinuz: 0x00000083fb1ac000-0x00000083fc880a00
Jul  5 23:09:15.704931 initrd.gz: 0x00000083f94b7000-0x00000083fb1ab6e8
Jul  5 23:09:15.836836 xenpolicy: 0x00000083f94b4000-0x00000083f94b6a5f
Jul  5 23:09:15.980866 Using bootargs from Xen configuration file.

But I guess we'll want to wait for the bi-sector to give us a more
solid indication ...

Jan