On 03.02.2022 14:38, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> @@ -1693,11 +1693,8 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
> put_guest(uregs->fs, esp - 5) |
> put_guest(uregs->es, esp - 6) |
> put_guest(uregs->ds, esp - 7) )
> - {
> - gprintk(XENLOG_ERR,
> - "error while creating compat failsafe callback
> frame\n");
> - domain_crash(n->domain);
> - }
> + domain_crash(n->domain,
> + "Error creating compat failsafe callback
> frame\n");
>
> if ( n->arch.pv.vgc_flags & VGCF_failsafe_disables_events )
> vcpu_info(n, evtchn_upcall_mask) = 1;
> @@ -1732,11 +1729,8 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n)
> put_guest(uregs->ds, rsp - 9) |
> put_guest(regs->r11, rsp - 10) |
> put_guest(regs->rcx, rsp - 11) )
> - {
> - gprintk(XENLOG_ERR,
> - "error while creating failsafe callback frame\n");
> - domain_crash(n->domain);
> - }
> + domain_crash(n->domain,
> + "Error creating failsafe callback frame\n");
I assume it wasn't really intended to hide potentially relevant information
(the subject vCPU) by this change, which - by way of gprintk() - did get
logged before (since we already have n == current at this point)?
Jan
