Re: Per-cpu IDT patch

Frank Kardel <[email protected]> Wed, 8 Jul 2020 12:31:38 +0200
Newsgroups gmane.os.netbsd.ports.x86-64,gmane.os.netbsd.ports.i386
Message-ID <[email protected]>
The patched GENERIC kernel booted fine directly.

A patches XEN3_DOM0 kernel with Xen 4.11 hypervisor paniced. That's why

I am suspecting Xen/AES changes.

Frank



On 07/08/20 12:10, s ymgch wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 10:45 PM Frank Kardel <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nice progress here:
>>
>> On bare metal 9.99.69 GENERIC boots sees all ixl, wm and nvme devices
>> with all their interrupts initialized - great.
>>
>> BUT... 9.99.69-XEN3_DOM0 digs out following panic:
>>
>> [   2.0100519] panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "ci->ci_kfpu_spl ==
>> -1" failed: file "/src/NetBSD/cur/src/sys/arch/x86/x86/fpu.c", line 389
>> [   2.0100519] cpu3: Begin traceback...
>> [   2.0100519] vpanic() at netbsd:vpanic+0x146
>> [   2.0100519] kern_assert() at netbsd:kern_assert+0x48
>> [   2.0100519] fpu_kern_enter() at netbsd:fpu_kern_enter+0x190
>> [   2.0100519] cpu3: Begin traceback...
>> [   2.0100519] vpanic() at netbsd:vpanic+0x146
>> [   2.0100519] kern_assert() at netbsd:kern_assert+0x48
>> [   2.0100519] fpu_kern_enter() at netbsd:fpu_kern_enter+0x190
>> [   2.0100519] aesni_probe() at netbsd:aesni_probe+0x28
>> [   2.0100519] aes_selftest() at netbsd:aes_selftest+0x13
>> [   2.0100519] aes_modcmd() at netbsd:aes_modcmd+0xff
>> [   2.0100519] module_do_builtin() at netbsd:module_do_builtin+0x173
>> [   2.0100519] module_do_builtin() at netbsd:module_do_builtin+0x12e
>> [   2.0100519] module_init_class() at netbsd:module_init_class+0x145
>> [   2.0100519] main() at netbsd:main+0x472
>> [   2.0100519] cpu3: End traceback...
>> [   2.0100519] fatal breakpoint trap in supervisor mode
>> [   2.0100519] trap type 1 code 0 rip 0xffffffff8023c93d cs 0xe030
>> rflags 0x202 cr2 0 ilevel 0x8 rsp 0xffffffff81981af0
>> [   2.0100519] curlwp 0xffffffff80e5c6c0 pid 0.0 lowest kstack
>> 0xffffffff8197d2c0
>> Stopped in pid 0.0 (system) at  netbsd:breakpoint+0x5:  leave
> Did it only appear when you applied my patch?
> It seems that the assertion happens not in IDT but fpu.
>
> -- yamaguchi