Hi,
Am 07.01.2019 um 12:12 schrieb Patrick Beckmann:
> I just joined this list and am referring to
> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-12/msg00938.html
>
> We have experienced several crashes of a recent Debian 9 Dom0 on new
> hardware with Xen version "4.8.4+xsa273+shim
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 07:46:57PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> The test host is slightly different hardware to the others: Xeon
> E5-1680v4 on there as opposed to Xeon D-1540 previously.
>
> Test host is now running with pcid=0 to see if that helps. The
> longest this guest has been able to ru
Hi,
I just joined this list and am referring to
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-12/msg00938.html
We have experienced several crashes of a recent Debian 9 Dom0 on new
hardware with Xen version "4.8.4+xsa273+shim4.10.1+xsa273-1+deb9u10".
After reporting it within Debian
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 03:16:32AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 01.01.19 at 20:46, wrote:
> > I did move the suspect guest to a test host that does not have
> > pcid=0 and 10 days later it crashed too:
>
> Thanks for trying this. It is now pretty clear that we need a means
> to repr
>>> On 01.01.19 at 20:46, wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 06:55:38PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
>> Is it worth me moving this guest to a test host without pcid=0 to
>> see if it crashes it, meanwhile keeping production hosts with
>> pcid=0? And then putting pcid=0 on the test host to see if it
>> s
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 06:55:38PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> Is it worth me moving this guest to a test host without pcid=0 to
> see if it crashes it, meanwhile keeping production hosts with
> pcid=0? And then putting pcid=0 on the test host to see if it
> survives longer?
I did move the
Hello,
And again today:
(XEN) [ Xen-4.10.3-pre x86_64 debug=n Not tainted ]
(XEN) CPU:4
(XEN) RIP:e008:[]
guest_4.o#sh_page_fault__guest_4+0x70b/0x2060
(XEN) RFLAGS: 00010203 CONTEXT: hypervisor (d61v1)
(XEN) rax: 00c422641dd0 rbx: 832005c49000 rcx:
>>> On 10.12.18 at 17:44, wrote:
> Does setting pcid=0 leave me increasingly vulnerable to Meltdown
> and/or negatively impact performance?
I don't think there's any vulnerability concern with disabling use
of PCID. On hardware without the feature we consider ourselves
sufficiently mitigated afte
Hi Jan,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 09:29:34AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 10.12.18 at 16:58, wrote:
> > Are there any other hypervisor command line options that would be
> > beneficial to set for next time?
>
> Well, just like for your report from a couple of weeks ago - if this is
> on PCID
>>> On 10.12.18 at 16:58, wrote:
> Are there any other hypervisor command line options that would be
> beneficial to set for next time?
Well, just like for your report from a couple of weeks ago - if this is
on PCID/INVPCID capable hardware, have you tried disabling use
of PCID?
Jan
_
Hi,
Up front information:
Today one of my Xen hosts crashed with this logging on the serial:
(XEN) [ Xen-4.10.1 x86_64 debug=n Not tainted ]
(XEN) CPU:15
(XEN) RIP:e008:[] guest_4.o#shadow_set_l1e+0x75/0x6a0
(XEN) RFLAGS: 00010246 CONTEXT: hypervisor (d31v1)
(XEN) r
11 matches
Mail list logo
