Hi,

On 27/06/2022 08:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 27.06.2022 03:38, osstest service owner wrote:
flight 171361 linux-linus real [real]
http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/171361/

Regressions :-(

Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
including tests which could not be run:
  test-amd64-amd64-dom0pvh-xl-intel  8 xen-boot            fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ws16-amd64  8 xen-boot         fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64  8 xen-boot         fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-pygrub       8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-freebsd11-amd64  8 xen-boot             fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-dom0pvh-xl-amd  8 xen-boot              fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-qemuu-nested-amd  8 xen-boot            fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64  8 xen-boot         fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-ws16-amd64  8 xen-boot         fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-debianhvm-i386-xsm  8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-i386-xsm  8 xen-boot fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64  8 xen-boot         fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-xl-xsm       8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 171277
  test-amd64-amd64-xl           8 xen-boot                 fail REGR. vs. 171277

At the example of this:

Jun 26 21:51:47.667404 mapping kernel into physical memory
Jun 26 21:51:47.667425 about to get started...
Jun 26 21:51:47.667435 (XEN) arch/x86/mm.c:2159:d0v0 Bad L1 flags 400000
Jun 26 21:51:47.667448 (XEN) Hardware Dom0 halted: halting machine

This is an attempt to install (modify?) a PTE with _PAGE_GNTTAB set
via normal page table management hypercalls. Considering how early in
the boot process this appears to be, I wonder whether a flag was
introduced in the kernel which aliases _PAGE_GNTTAB (or a use of such
a pre-existing flag on a path which previously was safe from being hit
when running in PV mode under Xen).

I wonder if the bisector is already having a go at isolating the
offending commit, or whether it had already failed in trying to.

I saw the same issues in my testing. Manually bisection poiunted to:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/22d07a44c80d8e8e1e82b9a806ddc8c6bbb2606e.1654759036.git.jpoim...@kernel.org/

This is meant to be fixed by:

https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/20220623094608.7294-1-jgr...@suse.com/

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

Reply via email to