linux-kernel - Re: Qemu v9.0.2: Boot failed qemu-arm64 with Linux next-20241017 tag

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87jze590cu.fsf@draig.linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:22:41 +0100
From: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,  open list
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,  Linux ARM
 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,  qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
  lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,  Linux Regressions
 <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,  Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
  Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,  Anders Roxell
 <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,  Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,  Dan Carpenter
 <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,  Aishwarya TCV <aishwarya.tcv@....com>,
  Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Qemu v9.0.2: Boot failed qemu-arm64 with Linux next-20241017 tag

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org> writes:

> On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 10:46, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org> writes:
>>
>> > The QEMU-arm64 boot has failed with the Linux next-20241017 tag.
>> > The boot log is incomplete, and no kernel crash was detected.
>> > However, the system did not proceed far enough to reach the login prompt.
>> >
>> > Please find the incomplete boot log links below for your reference.
>> > The Qemu version is 9.0.2.
>> > The arm64 devices boot pass.
>>
>> Can confirm it also fails on the current master of QEMU:
>>
>>   #0  __pthread_kill_implementation (threadid=<optimized out>, signo=signo@...ry=6, no_tid=no_tid@...ry=0) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:44
>>   #1  0x00007ffff4a3ae9f in __pthread_kill_internal (signo=6, threadid=<optimized out>) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:78
>>   #2  0x00007ffff49ebfb2 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@...ry=6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26
>>   #3  0x00007ffff49d6472 in __GI_abort () at ./stdlib/abort.c:79
>>   #4  0x00007ffff6e47ec8 in  () at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
>>   #5  0x00007ffff6ea7e1a in g_assertion_message_expr () at /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libglib-2.0.so.0
>>   #6  0x0000555555f45732 in regime_is_user (env=0x555557f805f0, mmu_idx=ARMMMUIdx_E10_0) at ../../target/arm/internals.h:978
>>   #7  0x0000555555f5b0f1 in aa64_va_parameters (env=0x555557f805f0, va=18446744073709551615, mmu_idx=ARMMMUIdx_E10_0, data=true, el1_is_aa32=false)
>>       at ../../target/arm/helper.c:12048
>>   #8  0x0000555555f4e3e5 in tlbi_aa64_get_range (env=0x555557f805f0, mmuidx=ARMMMUIdx_E10_0, value=107271103184929) at ../../target/arm/helper.c:5214
>
> I investigated this yesterday when Catalin reported it
> and sent a patch:
> https://patchew.org/QEMU/20241017172331.822587-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org/

And here was I thinking I was being efficient ;-)

-- 
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro