On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:48:08 AM Andriy Gapon wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 22:16, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, November 06, 2015 07:02:59 PM Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >> On 11/06/15 12:20, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>> Now the strange part:
> >>> 0xffffffff80619a18 <+744>: jne 0xffffffff80619a61
> >>> <__mtx_lock_flags+817>
> >>> 0xffffffff80619a1a <+746>: mov %rbx,(%rsp)
> >>> => 0xffffffff80619a1e <+750>: movq $0x0,0x18(%rsp)
> >>> 0xffffffff80619a27 <+759>: movq $0x0,0x10(%rsp)
> >>> 0xffffffff80619a30 <+768>: movq $0x0,0x8(%rsp)
> >> Were these instructions dumped from RAM or from the kernel ELF file?
> > Probably not from RAM. You can use 'info files' in gdb to see what is
> > handling the address range in question (core vs executable). x/i in ddb
> > would have been the "real" truth.
> Yes, according to the output of files it looks like gdb would read that data
> from the text section of the kernel file.
> How about libkvm? Would kvm_read read data from the core file?
kvm_read should only access the vmcore, yes.
> I've written the following small program (cut down dmesg.c, actually):
> (kgdb) disassemble /r
> => 0xffffffff80619a1e <+750>: 48 c7 44 24 18 00 00 00 00 movq
> $ vmcore_read -N /boot/kernel.29/kernel -M /var/crash/vmcore.29
> 0xffffffff80619a1e 9
> 48 c7 44 24 18 00 00 00 00
> Seems like the code is intact.
> 1. To correct something I said earlier, the fault is #UD, not #GP.
> 2. The only "suspicious" activity at the time of the crash was the execution
> a bhyve VM.
Was the crash in the guest or the host? UD# seems even more bizarre.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"