From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 9 11:06:58 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 189A52A4 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:06:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03B671E96 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:06:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rB9B6vL4071233 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:06:57 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id rB9B6vNl071231 for freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:06:57 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:06:57 GMT Message-Id: <201312091106.rB9B6vNl071231@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: gnats set sender to owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org using -f From: FreeBSD bugmaster To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Subject: Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 11:06:58 -0000 Note: to view an individual PR, use: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. S Tracker Resp. Description -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o kern/183139 xen [xen] [patch] ifconfig options on xn0 lost after xen v o kern/180788 xen [xen] [panic] XEN PV kernel 9.2-BETA1 panics on boot o kern/180403 xen [xen] Problems with GENERIC and XENHVM kernels with Xe o kern/180402 xen [xen] XEN kernel does not load in XenClient 4.5.5 o kern/179814 xen [xen] mountroot fails with error=19 under Xen on 9-STA o kern/176471 xen [xen] xn driver crash on detach o kern/176053 xen [xen] [patch] i386: Correct wrong usage of vsnprintf() o kern/175954 xen [xen] XENHVM xn network driver extreme packet loss dur o kern/175822 xen [xen] FreeBSD 9.1 does not work with Xen 4.0 o kern/175757 xen [xen] [patch] xen pvhvm looses keyboard input from VNC o kern/171873 xen [xen] xn network device floods warning in dmesg o kern/171118 xen [xen] FreeBSD XENHVM guest doesn't shutdown cleanly o kern/166174 xen [xen] Problems ROOT MOUNT ERROR o kern/165418 xen [xen] Problems mounting root filesystem from XENHVM o kern/164630 xen [xen] XEN HVM kernel: run_interrupt_driven_hooks: stil o kern/164450 xen [xen] Failed to install FreeeBSD 9.0-RELEASE from CD i o kern/162677 xen [xen] FreeBSD not compatible with "Current Stable Xen" o kern/161318 xen [xen] sysinstall crashes with floating point exception o kern/155468 xen [xen] Xen PV i386 multi-kernel CPU system is not worki o kern/155353 xen [xen] [patch] put "nudging TOD" message under boot_ver o kern/154833 xen [xen]: xen 4.0 - DomU freebsd8.2RC3 i386, XEN kernel. o kern/154473 xen [xen] xen 4.0 - DomU freebsd8.1 i386, XEN kernel. Not o kern/154472 xen [xen] xen 4.0 - DomU freebsd8.1 i386 xen kernel reboot o kern/154428 xen [xen] xn0 network interface and PF - Massive performan o kern/153674 xen [xen] i386/XEN idle thread shows wrong percentages o kern/153672 xen [xen] [panic] i386/XEN panics under heavy fork load o kern/153620 xen [xen] Xen guest system clock drifts in AWS EC2 (FreeBS o kern/153477 xen [xen] XEN pmap code abuses vm page queue lock o kern/153150 xen [xen] xen/ec2: disable checksum offloading on interfac o kern/152228 xen [xen] [panic] Xen/PV panic with machdep.idle_mwait=1 o kern/144629 xen [xen] FreeBSD 8-RELEASE XEN pvm networking doesn't wor o kern/143398 xen [xen] FreeBSD 8-RELEASE XEN pvm networking doesn't wor o kern/143340 xen [xen] FreeBSD 8-RELEASE XEN pvm networking doesn't wor f kern/143069 xen [xen] [panic] Xen Kernel Panic - Memory modified after f kern/135667 xen ufs filesystem corruption on XEN DomU system f kern/135421 xen [xen] FreeBSD Xen PVM DomU network failure - netfronc. f kern/135178 xen [xen] Xen domU outgoing data transfer stall when TSO i p kern/135069 xen [xen] FreeBSD-current/Xen SMP doesn't function at all f i386/124516 xen [xen] FreeBSD-CURRENT Xen Kernel Segfaults when config o kern/118734 xen [xen] FreeBSD 6.3-RC1 and FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 4 fail to b 40 problems total. From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 10 14:31:06 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DD778A1; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:31:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from SMTP.CITRIX.COM (smtp.citrix.com [66.165.176.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9628110DA; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:31:05 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,865,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="82798618" Received: from accessns.citrite.net (HELO FTLPEX01CL03.citrite.net) ([10.9.154.239]) by FTLPIPO01.CITRIX.COM with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2013 14:29:51 +0000 Received: from norwich.cam.xci-test.com (10.80.248.129) by smtprelay.citrix.com (10.13.107.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.4; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:29:50 -0500 Received: from mariner.cam.xci-test.com ([10.80.2.22] helo=mariner.uk.xensource.com) by norwich.cam.xci-test.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VqOJq-0007BZ-3W; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:29:50 +0000 Received: from iwj by mariner.uk.xensource.com with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VqOJp-0001rg-Sr; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:29:49 +0000 From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <21159.9565.719871.997315@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:29:49 +0000 To: Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] FreeBSD guest integrated into Xen push gate tests In-Reply-To: <52A30023.2030303@citrix.com> References: <52A30023.2030303@citrix.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.1.0 under 23.4.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) X-DLP: MIA2 Cc: "freebsd-xen@freebsd.org" , "Justin T. Gibbs" X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:31:06 -0000 Roger Pau Monné writes ("[HEADS UP] FreeBSD guest integrated into Xen push gate tests"): > Today we had the first successful run of the Xen push gate tester > (OSSTest) containing a FreeBSD PVHVM guest. This means that from now > onwards every commit on the Xen repository will be tested against a > FreeBSD PVHVM guest (i386 and amd64), to make sure new changes in Xen > doesn't break current support in FreeBSD. You can see the results of the > first run at: > > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/22323/ Congratulations to the FreeBSD and Xen communities on the good support for Xen PV/PVHVM - getting the whole test run to pass as soon as we had it properly integrated in osstest reflects well on the level of completeness of the FreeBSD support. Other guests have given us trouble with (for example) broken suspend/migration support. > A very big thanks goes to Ian Jackson for integrating my crappy FreeBSD > install script into OSSTest and for solving the various problems that > arose during the integration. You're very welcome. Regards, Ian. From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 14 02:23:58 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9012C77 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:23:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phlegethon.blisses.org (phlegethon.blisses.org [50.56.97.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B07216BD for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:23:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blisses.org (cocytus.blisses.org [23.25.209.73]) by phlegethon.blisses.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E64C1F8191 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:23:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:23:55 -0500 From: Mason Loring Bliss To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: XEN vs XENHVM? Message-ID: <20131214022355.GX19296@blisses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:23:58 -0000 I was psyched to see that GENERIC kernels in 10 have HVMXEN support by default, but then I was left a little confused. What's the different between a kernel with options XEN and one with options HVMXEN? I'd love to be able to run FreeBSD domU systems without having to do a custom compile whenever there's an update. I've got a 9.1 system running now, using a copy of the XEN config with a couple tweaks, and I see all the PV drivers I expect. I'm wondering what's different with XENHVM... Also useful would be knowing if there are remaining differences between i386 and amd64 as a domU in FreeBSD 10. Thanks in advance for clues. -- The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. - G. Orwell From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 14 02:31:17 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07185E56 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from o3.shared.sendgrid.net (o3.shared.sendgrid.net [208.117.48.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D54D1743 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:31:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.info; h=from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpapi; bh=y32s+5TYyaM48SYrrHvP9nc2j0M=; b=MJQKBXk9IcvZ6Yh+D1 n0nIxyn+OjoTgGL/Ri1LpvDq+yKT1xMIj80ONmAcMaA06leZoB3w1fs4RZiWhW+4 ZWrFWORYBgZK1TWmb2p3rf4a/+9CTUaOqkLqTQHD552Io580FMVJPN75hQCg51iI Hd6eFj6vk6lK1rQZx0veq/KI4= Received: by mf37 with SMTP id mf37.30198.52ABC2F34 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:31:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.tarsnap.com (unknown [10.60.208.13]) by mi70 (SG) with ESMTP id 142eef1867b.f1f.816df for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:31:15 -0600 (CST) Received: (qmail 76289 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2013 02:31:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clamshell.daemonology.net) (127.0.0.1) by ec2-107-20-205-189.compute-1.amazonaws.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2013 02:31:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 79484 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2013 02:28:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO clamshell.daemonology.net) (127.0.0.1) by clamshell.daemonology.net with SMTP; 14 Dec 2013 02:28:14 -0000 Message-ID: <52ABC23E.4020408@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 18:28:14 -0800 From: Colin Percival User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mason Loring Bliss , freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: XEN vs XENHVM? References: <20131214022355.GX19296@blisses.org> In-Reply-To: <20131214022355.GX19296@blisses.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SG-EID: RUbAm5H8PjswBj/QH+sYVehaJogg3iBnZcyVi1bw/Iy/Fo+h4gAY53/ZKIm5P6V4MOkVQRiF4rht7xBgYMIh+FOfUiJRmKUYmLwoHG8BMcFsM45G3pcoafPFDRITkMcY5yaU9VHeBvEH4tJrv8UElbidQGShxhlQZeksXSvg++U= X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:31:17 -0000 On 12/13/13 18:23, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: > I was psyched to see that GENERIC kernels in 10 have HVMXEN support by > default, but then I was left a little confused. > > What's the different between a kernel with options XEN and one with options > HVMXEN? The XEN option is for *paravirtualized* Xen -- aka. the original version, before Intel and AMD added virtualization support into their CPUs. HVM uses "hardware virtualization", but we also use PV drivers where available. > I'd love to be able to run FreeBSD domU systems without having to do > a custom compile whenever there's an update. I've got a 9.1 system running > now, using a copy of the XEN config with a couple tweaks, and I see all the > PV drivers I expect. I'm wondering what's different with XENHVM... Also > useful would be knowing if there are remaining differences between i386 and > amd64 as a domU in FreeBSD 10. You want to switch to using HVM with PV devices. That should be a simple tweak to your Xen configuration, and then you'll be able to use a GENERIC kernel. -- Colin Percival Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 14 02:36:56 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D946EF94; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phlegethon.blisses.org (phlegethon.blisses.org [50.56.97.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BD931778; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blisses.org (cocytus.blisses.org [23.25.209.73]) by phlegethon.blisses.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D71E11F8191; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:36:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:36:52 -0500 From: Mason Loring Bliss To: Colin Percival Subject: Re: XEN vs XENHVM? Message-ID: <20131214023652.GY19296@blisses.org> References: <20131214022355.GX19296@blisses.org> <52ABC23E.4020408@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52ABC23E.4020408@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:36:56 -0000 On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:28:14PM -0800, Colin Percival wrote: > The XEN option is for *paravirtualized* Xen -- aka. the original version, > before Intel and AMD added virtualization support into their CPUs. HVM uses > "hardware virtualization", but we also use PV drivers where available. Oh, hm. So, there was never any reason for me to be running XEN (vs XENHVM) on this hardware in the first place! Heh. I'll switch over my existing system and try GENERIC on a new box I'm spinning up this weekend. Thank you. -- The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. - G. Orwell From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 14 08:25:16 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29E014A5; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:25:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from SMTP02.CITRIX.COM (smtp02.citrix.com [66.165.176.63]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 484C9118A; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:25:14 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,484,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="82242671" Received: from accessns.citrite.net (HELO FTLPEX01CL03.citrite.net) ([10.9.154.239]) by FTLPIPO02.CITRIX.COM with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2013 08:25:12 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (10.80.16.47) by smtprelay.citrix.com (10.13.107.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.4; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 03:25:12 -0500 Message-ID: <52AC15E8.9050909@citrix.com> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 09:25:12 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Colin Percival , Mason Loring Bliss , Subject: Re: XEN vs XENHVM? References: <20131214022355.GX19296@blisses.org> <52ABC23E.4020408@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <52ABC23E.4020408@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DLP: MIA1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:25:16 -0000 On 14/12/13 03:28, Colin Percival wrote: > On 12/13/13 18:23, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: >> I was psyched to see that GENERIC kernels in 10 have HVMXEN support by >> default, but then I was left a little confused. >> >> What's the different between a kernel with options XEN and one with options >> HVMXEN? > > The XEN option is for *paravirtualized* Xen -- aka. the original version, > before Intel and AMD added virtualization support into their CPUs. HVM > uses "hardware virtualization", but we also use PV drivers where available. > >> I'd love to be able to run FreeBSD domU systems without having to do >> a custom compile whenever there's an update. I've got a 9.1 system running >> now, using a copy of the XEN config with a couple tweaks, and I see all the >> PV drivers I expect. I'm wondering what's different with XENHVM... Also >> useful would be knowing if there are remaining differences between i386 and >> amd64 as a domU in FreeBSD 10. > > You want to switch to using HVM with PV devices. That should be a simple > tweak to your Xen configuration, and then you'll be able to use a GENERIC > kernel. Just as a note, the support in GENERIC is not only HVM with PV devices, is basically a PV guest inside an HVM container, meaning it also uses PV IPIs and PV timers. The main difference between pure PV and PVHVM is that PV requires a PV MMU implementation in the OS, while PVHVM can use a hardware virtualized MMU (because it's running inside of a HVM container). Roger.