WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] invalid PTE for xen_start-info ?

To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] invalid PTE for xen_start-info ?
From: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:06:41 -0400
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:07:42 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C147FB18.1F5D%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C147FB18.1F5D%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913)
Keir Fraser wrote:

Please beat up on this release candidate and post bug reports on any
outstanding issues. We are getting close to 3.0.3-0 final release!

I am seeing some suspicious output from the xen_start_info
pte address at startup.  This is with the 2.6.9 Xen code,
which is mostly based off an older code base, but I notice
that mfn_to_pfn() in the current codebase seems to have a
workaround for this bug.

Started domain crumble
xen_start_info @ffffffff8087c000
shared @m0000fc3000 @ffffffff80107000=@ffffffffff5fd000 [0x802]
xen_start_info: @ffffffff8087c000
cr3 0000000000101000 pml4p ffffffff80101ff8
pml4e 0000000000103067 (real 0000000035e09067) pgdp ffffff8000103ff0
pgde 0000000000105067 (real 0000000035e07067) pmdp ffffff8000105020
pmde 0000000000886067 (real 0000000035006067) ptep ffffff80008863e0
pte 0000000019800027 (real 0010000035010027)

That last PTE value does not look like a valid x86-64 PTE
value to me.  That high bit is not the NX bit, nor is it
within the physical address range of the system in question.

What's going on here?

Is this a bug you would like a fix for?

--
All Rights Reversed

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel