Hi,
On 18/04/17 19:51, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 18/04/17 20:46, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 18/04/17 20:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 06/04/17 18:43, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:22:44PM
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:37:38PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr, at 09:29:06PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 02:46:50PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > On Thu, 06 Apr, at 04:55:11PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Please, let's keep the Xen knowledge constrai
On Wed, 19 Apr, at 09:29:06PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 02:46:50PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Apr, at 04:55:11PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > Please, let's keep the Xen knowledge constrained to the Xen EFI wrapper,
> > > rather than spreading it further.
> >
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 02:46:50PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr, at 04:55:11PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > Please, let's keep the Xen knowledge constrained to the Xen EFI wrapper,
> > rather than spreading it further.
> >
> > IMO, given reset_system is a *mandatory* function, the Xe
On 18/04/17 20:46, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 18/04/17 20:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 06/04/17 18:43, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 18/04/17 20:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 06/04/17 18:43, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/04/17 18:06, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>
On 18/04/17 20:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 06/04/17 18:43, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 06/04/17 18:06, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:39
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/04/17 18:43, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 06/04/17 18:06, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >>> Hi Julien,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:39:13PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Danie
On Thu, 06 Apr, at 04:55:11PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> Please, let's keep the Xen knowledge constrained to the Xen EFI wrapper,
> rather than spreading it further.
>
> IMO, given reset_system is a *mandatory* function, the Xen wrapper
> should provide an implementation.
>
> I don't see why you c
On 06/04/17 18:43, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 06/04/17 18:06, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>>> Hi Julien,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:39:13PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On 06/04/17 16:20, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:22:44PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/04/17 18:06, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > Hi Julien,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:39:13PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >> On 06/04/17 16:20, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:38:24PM +020
On 06/04/17 18:06, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:39:13PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> On 06/04/17 16:20, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 06/04/17 16:27, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On T
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:39:13PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 06/04/17 16:20, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>On 06/04/17 16:27, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:32:32AM +0100, Julien Grall
[Adding the EFI maintainers]
Tl;DR: Xen's EFI wrappery doesn't implement reset_system, so when
invoked on arm64 we get a NULL dereference.
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:39:13PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 06/04/17 16:20, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Juergen Gr
Hi Daniel,
On 06/04/17 16:20, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 06/04/17 16:27, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:32:32AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 06/04/17 07:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 05/04/17 21:49, Boris
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/04/17 16:27, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:32:32AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> Hi Juergen,
> >>
> >> On 06/04/17 07:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>> On 05/04/17 21:49, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/0
On 06/04/17 16:27, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:32:32AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Juergen,
>>
>> On 06/04/17 07:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 05/04/17 21:49, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 04/05/2017 02:14 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> The x86 code has theoritically a s
On 04/06/2017 10:32 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 06/04/17 15:27, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:32:32AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi Juergen,
>>>
>>> On 06/04/17 07:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 05/04/17 21:49, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/05/2017 02:
Hi Daniel,
On 06/04/17 15:27, Daniel Kiper wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:32:32AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 06/04/17 07:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 05/04/17 21:49, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 04/05/2017 02:14 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
The x86 code has theoritically a similar
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:32:32AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> On 06/04/17 07:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >On 05/04/17 21:49, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>On 04/05/2017 02:14 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>>The x86 code has theoritically a similar issue, altought EFI does not
> >>>seem t
On 06/04/17 10:32, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> On 06/04/17 07:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/04/17 21:49, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2017 02:14 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
The x86 code has theoritically a similar issue, altought EFI does not
seem to be the preferred met
Hi Juergen,
On 06/04/17 07:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 05/04/17 21:49, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 04/05/2017 02:14 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
The x86 code has theoritically a similar issue, altought EFI does not
seem to be the preferred method. I have left it unimplemented on x86 and
CCed Linux Xe
On 05/04/17 21:49, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/05/2017 02:14 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>> When rebooting DOM0 with ACPI, the kernel is crashing with the stack trace
>> [1].
>>
>> This is happening because when EFI runtimes are enabled, the reset code
>> (see machin_restart) will first try to use
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> When rebooting DOM0 with ACPI, the kernel is crashing with the stack trace
> [1].
>
> This is happening because when EFI runtimes are enabled, the reset code
> (see machin_restart) will first try to use EFI restart method.
>
> However, the EFI restart co
On 04/05/2017 02:14 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> When rebooting DOM0 with ACPI, the kernel is crashing with the stack trace
> [1].
>
> This is happening because when EFI runtimes are enabled, the reset code
> (see machin_restart) will first try to use EFI restart method.
>
> However, the EFI restart
When rebooting DOM0 with ACPI, the kernel is crashing with the stack trace [1].
This is happening because when EFI runtimes are enabled, the reset code
(see machin_restart) will first try to use EFI restart method.
However, the EFI restart code is expecting the reset_system callback to
be always
26 matches
Mail list logo
