On 2017-05-16 10:49, Glenn Enright wrote:
On 15/05/17 21:57, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 13/05/17 06:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
On 09/05/17 21:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:10:24AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 04/05/17 00:17, Glenn Enright wrote:
On 04/05/17 04:58, Steven
On 15/05/17 21:57, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 13/05/17 06:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
On 09/05/17 21:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:10:24AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 04/05/17 00:17, Glenn Enright wrote:
On 04/05/17 04:58, Steven Haigh wrote:
On 04/05/17 01:53, Juergen G
On 13/05/17 06:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
> On 09/05/17 21:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:10:24AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 04/05/17 00:17, Glenn Enright wrote:
On 04/05/17 04:58, Steven Haigh wrote:
> On 04/05/17 01:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 03/05
On 09/05/17 21:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:10:24AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 04/05/17 00:17, Glenn Enright wrote:
On 04/05/17 04:58, Steven Haigh wrote:
On 04/05/17 01:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 03/05/17 12:45, Steven Haigh wrote:
Just wanted to give this a li
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:10:24AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 04/05/17 00:17, Glenn Enright wrote:
> > On 04/05/17 04:58, Steven Haigh wrote:
> >> On 04/05/17 01:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>> On 03/05/17 12:45, Steven Haigh wrote:
> Just wanted to give this a little nudge now people see
On 04/05/17 00:17, Glenn Enright wrote:
> On 04/05/17 04:58, Steven Haigh wrote:
>> On 04/05/17 01:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 03/05/17 12:45, Steven Haigh wrote:
Just wanted to give this a little nudge now people seem to be back on
deck...
>>>
>>> Glenn, could you please give the att
On 04/05/17 04:58, Steven Haigh wrote:
On 04/05/17 01:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 03/05/17 12:45, Steven Haigh wrote:
Just wanted to give this a little nudge now people seem to be back on
deck...
Glenn, could you please give the attached patch a try?
It should be applied on top of the other
On 04/05/17 01:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 03/05/17 12:45, Steven Haigh wrote:
>> Just wanted to give this a little nudge now people seem to be back on
>> deck...
>
> Glenn, could you please give the attached patch a try?
>
> It should be applied on top of the other correction, the old debug
>
On 03/05/17 12:45, Steven Haigh wrote:
> Just wanted to give this a little nudge now people seem to be back on
> deck...
Glenn, could you please give the attached patch a try?
It should be applied on top of the other correction, the old debug
patch should not be applied.
I have added some debug
On 03/05/17 12:45, Steven Haigh wrote:
> Just wanted to give this a little nudge now people seem to be back on
> deck...
Things seem to be more complicated than I thought.
There are clearly paths leading to use-after-free scenarios, e.g. the
one of the backtrace below:
xen_blkbk_remove() will fr
Just wanted to give this a little nudge now people seem to be back on
deck...
On 01/05/17 10:55, Glenn Enright wrote:
> On 19/04/17 22:09, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 19/04/17 09:16, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:39:41AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 19/04/17 03:02, Gl
On 19/04/17 22:09, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 19/04/17 09:16, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:39:41AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 19/04/17 03:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
Thanks Juergen. I applied that, to our 4.9.23 dom0 kernel, which still
shows the issue. When replicating the
On 21/04/17 10:42, Steven Haigh wrote:
> On 20/04/17 02:22, Steven Haigh wrote:
>> On 19/04/17 20:09, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 19/04/17 09:16, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:39:41AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 19/04/17 03:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
>> Thanks Ju
On 20/04/17 02:22, Steven Haigh wrote:
> On 19/04/17 20:09, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 19/04/17 09:16, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:39:41AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 19/04/17 03:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
> Thanks Juergen. I applied that, to our 4.9.23 dom0 kern
On 19/04/17 20:09, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 19/04/17 09:16, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:39:41AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 19/04/17 03:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
Thanks Juergen. I applied that, to our 4.9.23 dom0 kernel, which still
shows the issue. When re
On 19/04/17 09:16, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:39:41AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 19/04/17 03:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
>>> Thanks Juergen. I applied that, to our 4.9.23 dom0 kernel, which still
>>> shows the issue. When replicating the leak I now see this trace (via
>
On 19/04/17 09:16, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:39:41AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 19/04/17 03:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
>>> On 18/04/17 20:36, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12/04/17 00:45, Glenn Enright wrote:
> On 12/04/17 10:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 11/0
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:39:41AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 19/04/17 03:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
> > On 18/04/17 20:36, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 12/04/17 00:45, Glenn Enright wrote:
> >>> On 12/04/17 10:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 11/04/2017 23:13, Glenn Enright wrote:
> > On
On 19/04/17 03:02, Glenn Enright wrote:
> On 18/04/17 20:36, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 12/04/17 00:45, Glenn Enright wrote:
>>> On 12/04/17 10:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 11/04/2017 23:13, Glenn Enright wrote:
> On 11/04/17 21:49, Dietmar Hahn wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, 11. April 2017, 20
On 18/04/17 20:36, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 12/04/17 00:45, Glenn Enright wrote:
On 12/04/17 10:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 11/04/2017 23:13, Glenn Enright wrote:
On 11/04/17 21:49, Dietmar Hahn wrote:
Am Dienstag, 11. April 2017, 20:03:14 schrieb Glenn Enright:
On 11/04/17 17:59, Juergen Gro
On 12/04/17 00:45, Glenn Enright wrote:
> On 12/04/17 10:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 11/04/2017 23:13, Glenn Enright wrote:
>>> On 11/04/17 21:49, Dietmar Hahn wrote:
Am Dienstag, 11. April 2017, 20:03:14 schrieb Glenn Enright:
> On 11/04/17 17:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 11/04/1
On 12/04/17 10:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 11/04/2017 23:13, Glenn Enright wrote:
On 11/04/17 21:49, Dietmar Hahn wrote:
Am Dienstag, 11. April 2017, 20:03:14 schrieb Glenn Enright:
On 11/04/17 17:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 11/04/17 07:25, Glenn Enright wrote:
Hi all
We are seeing an odd i
On 11/04/2017 23:13, Glenn Enright wrote:
> On 11/04/17 21:49, Dietmar Hahn wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, 11. April 2017, 20:03:14 schrieb Glenn Enright:
>>> On 11/04/17 17:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 11/04/17 07:25, Glenn Enright wrote:
> Hi all
>
> We are seeing an odd issue with domu d
On 11/04/17 21:49, Dietmar Hahn wrote:
Am Dienstag, 11. April 2017, 20:03:14 schrieb Glenn Enright:
On 11/04/17 17:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 11/04/17 07:25, Glenn Enright wrote:
Hi all
We are seeing an odd issue with domu domains from xl destroy, under
recent 4.9 kernels a (null) domain is
Am Dienstag, 11. April 2017, 20:03:14 schrieb Glenn Enright:
> On 11/04/17 17:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 11/04/17 07:25, Glenn Enright wrote:
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> We are seeing an odd issue with domu domains from xl destroy, under
> >> recent 4.9 kernels a (null) domain is left behind.
> >
>
On 11/04/17 17:59, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 11/04/17 07:25, Glenn Enright wrote:
Hi all
We are seeing an odd issue with domu domains from xl destroy, under
recent 4.9 kernels a (null) domain is left behind.
I guess this is the dom0 kernel version?
This has occurred on a variety of hardware,
On 11/04/17 07:25, Glenn Enright wrote:
> Hi all
>
> We are seeing an odd issue with domu domains from xl destroy, under
> recent 4.9 kernels a (null) domain is left behind.
I guess this is the dom0 kernel version?
> This has occurred on a variety of hardware, with no obvious commonality.
>
> 4
Hi all
We are seeing an odd issue with domu domains from xl destroy, under
recent 4.9 kernels a (null) domain is left behind.
This has occurred on a variety of hardware, with no obvious commonality.
4.4.55 does not show this behavior.
On my test machine I have the following packages installe
28 matches
Mail list logo