Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:17:34 +0200 From: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com> Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, Toni <tonygio04@gmail.com>, Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de>, Andreas Tobler <andreast@fgznet.ch> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu git head 20100323 on FreeBSD - qemu-devel port update for testing Message-ID: <20100330201734.GA2678@triton8.kn-bremen.de> In-Reply-To: <s2tf43fc5581003301254z8686e265s436c16a5826e4166@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100325204423.GA46954@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <f43fc5581003301104x77c0e527m871b035a7364bd5b@mail.gmail.com> <20100330191629.GA95521@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <s2tf43fc5581003301254z8686e265s436c16a5826e4166@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:54:03PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: > On 3/30/10, Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 09:04:28PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: > > > On 3/25/10, Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > Now that qemu git head works again (thanx Aurelien! :) I've finished > > > > the FreeBSD qemu-devel port update patch/shar that made me uncover > > > > the bug: > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/qemu/qemu-devel-20100323.patch > > > > resp. > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/qemu/qemu-devel-20100323.shar > > > > > > > > This also adds a few misc fixes (that I'll submit on the qemu list > > > > seperately), I have... > > > > > > > > . Fixed the FreeBSD executable path detection to work without /proc > > > > mounted (it usually isn't on FreeBSD), so you now no longer have to > > > > pass the path to the pc-bios dir with -L if you run qemu out of the > > > > build dir when another version is installed, like, > > > > work/qemu-snapshot-20100323_20/i386-softmmu/qemu ... > > > > > > > > (files/patch-vl.c in the shar/patch) > > > > > > > > . Fixed some more bsd-user bugs so all of i386-bsd-user, x86_64-bsd-user, > > > > and sparc64-bsd-user now run for me again on FreeBSD stable/8 amd64. > > > > (I didn't test sparc-bsd-user as I only tried -bsd freebsd and FreeBSD > > > > doesn't run on 32bit sparc.) - Yes bsd-user still needs more work but > > > > at least simple exectuables run. > > > > > > > > (files/patch-bsd-user-mmap.c, files/patch-exec.c) > > > > > > > > . Fixed the bsd-user host page protection code for FreeBSD hosts > > > > (using kinfo_getvmmap(3) on FeeBSD >= 7.x and /compat/linux/proc > > > > on older FreeBSD.) > > > > > > > > (files/patch-bsd-user-linproc) > > > > > > > > . Fixed some compilation warnings and a missing #include. > > > > > > > > (files/patch-qemu-char.c, files/patch-qemu-timer.c) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, applied all except exec.c one. > > > > > > Oh, is there something wrong with it? You mean this one, right? > > > > Subject: [PATCH] Avoid page_set_flags() assert in qemu-user host page > > protection code > > Message-ID: <20100325211421.GA52572@triton8.kn-bremen.de> > > [...] > > > > --- a/exec.c > > +++ b/exec.c > > @@ -293,10 +293,13 @@ static void page_init(void) > > > > if (h2g_valid(endaddr)) { > > endaddr = h2g(endaddr); > > + page_set_flags(startaddr, endaddr, PAGE_RESERVED); > > } else { > > +#if TARGET_ABI_BITS <= L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS > > endaddr = ~0ul; > > + page_set_flags(startaddr, endaddr, PAGE_RESERVED); > > +#endif > > } > > - page_set_flags(startaddr, endaddr, PAGE_RESERVED); > > } > > } while (!feof(f)); > > > > I first tried to replace the endaddr in the !h2g_valid(endaddr) case with > > ((abi_ulong)1 << L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS) - 1 > > if TARGET_ABI_BITS > L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS (which comes from the condition > > of the assert in page_set_flags() that was triggered on the ~0ul value), > > but that caused the qemu process to grow into swap and made the box > > usuable when that code was reached and I had to kill qemu. (The box has > > 8 GB RAM.) And so I thought just leaving that page range unprotected > > if only the start address is valid was the lesser evil... > > I was thinking something like (abi_ulong)-1 but maybe that isn't any > more correct. Oh this is happening with x86_64-bsd-user on the same arch so I'd say (abi_ulong)-1 would be the same as ~0ul (and still cause the assert.) Cheers, Juergen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100330201734.GA2678>