>>> On 15.04.18 at 22:15, <si...@invisiblethingslab.com> wrote:
> (XEN) *** DOUBLE FAULT ***
> (XEN) ----[ Xen-4.11-unstable  x86_64  debug=y   Not tainted ]----
> (XEN) CPU:    0
> (XEN) RIP:    e008:[<ffff82d08027c35d>] search_pre_exception_table+0/0x54
> (XEN) RFLAGS: 0000000000010046   CONTEXT: hypervisor
> (XEN) rax: 0000000000000000   rbx: 0000000000000000   rcx: 0000000000000000
> (XEN) rdx: 0000000000000000   rsi: 0000000000000000   rdi: ffffc90040cd4028
> (XEN) rbp: 000036ffbf32bfb7   rsp: ffffc90040cd4020   r8:  0000000000000000
> (XEN) r9:  0000000000000000   r10: 0000000000000000   r11: 0000000000000000
> (XEN) r12: 0000000000000000   r13: 0000000000000000   r14: ffffc90040cd7fff
> (XEN) r15: 0000000000000000   cr0: 000000008005003b   cr4: 00000000000426e0
> (XEN) cr3: 000000022200a000   cr2: ffffc90040cd3ff8
> (XEN) fsb: 00007fd74515e740   gsb: ffff88021e6c0000   gss: 0000000000000000
> (XEN) ds: 002b   es: 002b   fs: 0000   gs: 0000   ss: e010   cs: e008
> (XEN) Current stack base ffffc90040cd0000 differs from expected 
> ffff8300cec88000
> (XEN) Valid stack range: ffffc90040cd6000-ffffc90040cd8000, 
> sp=ffffc90040cd4020, tss.rsp0=ffff8300cec8ffa0

The fact that the exact location varies where the #DF triggers is of no big
interest - it all depends on when exactly the stack overflow occurs. What
I note though: ffffc90040cd4020 is a guest (presumably Dom0) kernel
address, far outside the Xen range. I guess we'd need to see all of that
(wrong) stack's contents logged up to the original entry into Xen to
understand how that could have happened.

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Reply via email to