On 10/11/2015 20:42, John Baldwin wrote:
> 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
>>>>> 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.
It was the host. This is bizarre indeed. I can think only of two
- new CPU erratum
- corrupted data somehow getting into the instruction cache, but the correct
data being read during the crash dump (i.e. flaky memory)
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"