This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] segfault in VM

To: Chris Andrews <chris@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] segfault in VM
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:57:03 +0100
Cc: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:00:02 +0100
Envelope-to: steven.hand@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:28:40 BST." <40FB8638.9030100@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=xen-devel>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-id: List for Xen developers <xen-devel.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Keir Fraser wrote:
> > Clearly there's some fairly random memory corruption going on, which
> > then causes segfaults (if the corruption hits code pages) and
> > filesystem corruption (if the corruption hits buffer-cache pages).
>  >
> > The "Bailing: not a -ve offset" and "GPF (0004):" messages are almost
> > certainly just symptoms of executing a corrupted block of code. i.e.,
> > the bug has already triggered some time ago - probably corrupted a
> > page of glibc or the kernel.
> > 
> > It would be interesting to see whether or not this is SMP-related.
> > It's also interesting that someone said they couldn't reproduce
> > corruption when using 2.6.7 for the non-privileged guest OSes.
> I'm seeing this corruption on a single CPU machine, with a single 2.4 
> guest running but idle. I only ran one 2.6.7 guest, and I didn't give it 
> any work, but it didn't take any load in the 2.4 guest to provoke problems.

Do you mean a single 2.4 or 2.6 guest in addition to your 2.4 DOM0?

 -- Keir

This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
Xen-devel mailing list