Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On 09/07/2015 05:21 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > CCing the net maintainers on this thread seems like it would > be a good idea... > > On 7 September 2015 at 08:47, Richard Purdie > wrote: >> On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 17:48 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >>> This

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 17:48 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Richard Purdie > wrote: > > On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 11:37 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > > I tested an assert in _recieve() which confirms it can be called when > >

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

CCing the net maintainers on this thread seems like it would be a good idea... On 7 September 2015 at 08:47, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 17:48 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >> This doesn't sound right. There are other network controllers

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 17:48 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Richard Purdie > wrote: > > On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 11:37 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > > It seems can_receive isn't enough, we'd need to put some checks into > >

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 17:48 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > This doesn't sound right. There are other network controllers that > rely of can_receive catching all cases properly. Is this a regression? > Looking at logs, I see some refactoring of QEMU net framework around > June timeframe, if you

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 17:48 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Richard Purdie >> wrote: >> > On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 11:37 -0700, Peter

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 2:21 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > CCing the net maintainers on this thread seems like it would > be a good idea... > > On 7 September 2015 at 08:47, Richard Purdie > wrote: >> On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 17:48 -0700,

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On 6 September 2015 at 19:37, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > This could still cause the same issue here though I think. The guest > can release first (case 5) without a corresponding fifo pop (case 3), > which actually means that the first patch idea might be the winner as

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 11:37 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Richard Purdie >> wrote: >> > On Sat, 2015-09-05 at 13:30 -0700, Peter

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 11:37 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Richard Purdie > wrote: > > On Sat, 2015-09-05 at 13:30 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Maydell

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Sat, 2015-09-05 at 13:30 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Maydell > wrote: > > On 4 September 2015 at 18:20, Richard Purdie > > wrote: > >> On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 13:43 +0100, Richard Purdie

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Sat, 2015-09-05 at 13:30 -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Maydell >> wrote: >> > On 4 September 2015 at 18:20, Richard Purdie >> >

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 4 September 2015 at 18:20, Richard Purdie > wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 13:43 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 12:31 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On 4 September 2015 at 12:24, Richard Purdie wrote: > So just based on that, yes, seems that the rx_fifo looks to be > overrunning. I can add the asserts but I think it would just confirm > this. Yes, the point of adding assertions is to confirm a hypothesis.

[Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

We're seeing repeated segfaults in qemu-system-arm when we heavily use the network. I have a coredump backtrace: Reading symbols from /home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-worker/nightly-arm-lsb/build/build/tmp/sysroots/x86_64-linux/usr/bin/qemu-system-arm...done. [New LWP 4536] [New LWP 4534]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 12:31 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 4 September 2015 at 12:24, Richard Purdie > wrote: > > So just based on that, yes, seems that the rx_fifo looks to be > > overrunning. I can add the asserts but I think it would just confirm > > this.

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On 4 September 2015 at 11:25, Richard Purdie wrote: > We're seeing repeated segfaults in qemu-system-arm when we heavily use > the network. I have a coredump backtrace: > (gdb) print s->tx_fifo_done > $1 = {99614720, 99614720, 99614720, 99614720} > (gdb) print

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 11:45 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 4 September 2015 at 11:25, Richard Purdie > wrote: > > We're seeing repeated segfaults in qemu-system-arm when we heavily use > > the network. I have a coredump backtrace: > > > (gdb) print

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 13:43 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 12:31 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 4 September 2015 at 12:24, Richard Purdie > > wrote: > > > So just based on that, yes, seems that the rx_fifo looks to be > > >

Re: [Qemu-devel] Segfault using qemu-system-arm in smc91c111

On 4 September 2015 at 18:20, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 13:43 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-09-04 at 12:31 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> > On 4 September 2015 at 12:24, Richard Purdie >> >