CentOS virt - Jun 2017 - xen4centos kernel version / debuginfo

Is there any problem moving to 4.9.31? This contains upstream commits
f2e767bb5d6ee0d9 for mpt3sas and
69861e0a52f87333 for dom0 memory mappings.

I am also trying to build a debuginfo package but it's not correct.
Specifically I'm able to get vmlinux but the .debug files for modules are
stripped, which isn't right. Does anyone know how to fix this?

I'm also not sure how you're supposed to build the kernel-firmware
package with the current spec file definition.

--Sarah
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: proposed-28.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 5742 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20170612/8dd755e8/attachment.bin>

On 06/12/2017 05:17 PM, Sarah Newman wrote:
> Is there any problem moving to 4.9.31? This contains upstream commits
f2e767bb5d6ee0d9 for mpt3sas and
> 69861e0a52f87333 for dom0 memory mappings.
4.9.31-27 is tagged for testing presently along with updated firmware.
I have it running on one hypervisor on Xen-44 and it has been stable for
3 days so far.  We could probably use some more testing before tagging
it stable.

I have been having some dom0 page allocation failures on 4.9.25... does
69861e0a52f87333 address that issue?  I was having trouble determining
if it was related.

https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/6/virt/x86_64/xen/
> I am also trying to build a debuginfo package but it's not correct.
Specifically I'm able to get vmlinux but the .debug files for modules are
> stripped, which isn't right. Does anyone know how to fix this?
How are you building?  CentOS builds with mock, but I'm not super
familiar with the environment.  rpmbuild -b doesn't seem to always work
that well.

Here's info from the last build:

http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=17331
http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=17330
> I'm also not sure how you're supposed to build the kernel-firmware
package with the current spec file definition.
I'm also not sure about how the firmware builds work but here's the Koji
builds from the last update:

http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=17333
http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=17332

-- 
Kevin Stange
Chief Technology Officer
Steadfast | Managed Infrastructure, Datacenter and Cloud Services
800 S Wells, Suite 190 | Chicago, IL 60607
312.602.2689 X203 | Fax: 312.602.2688
kevin at steadfast.net | www.steadfast.net

On 06/12/2017 03:25 PM, Kevin Stange wrote:
> On 06/12/2017 05:17 PM, Sarah Newman wrote:
>> Is there any problem moving to 4.9.31? This contains upstream commits
f2e767bb5d6ee0d9 for mpt3sas and
>> 69861e0a52f87333 for dom0 memory mappings.
> 
> 4.9.31-27 is tagged for testing presently along with updated firmware.
> I have it running on one hypervisor on Xen-44 and it has been stable for
> 3 days so far.  We could probably use some more testing before tagging
> it stable.
> 
> I have been having some dom0 page allocation failures on 4.9.25... does
> 69861e0a52f87333 address that issue?  I was having trouble determining
> if it was related.
I don't know if it addresses it. I have also been having similar problems.
> 
> https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/6/virt/x86_64/xen/
> 
>> I am also trying to build a debuginfo package but it's not correct.
Specifically I'm able to get vmlinux but the .debug files for modules are
>> stripped, which isn't right. Does anyone know how to fix this?
> 
> How are you building?  CentOS builds with mock, but I'm not super
> familiar with the environment.  rpmbuild -b doesn't seem to always work
> that well.
I am building with mock.

There are currently no debuginfo packages, this is a capability I'm trying
to add.
>> I'm also not sure how you're supposed to build the
kernel-firmware package with the current spec file definition.
> 
> I'm also not sure about how the firmware builds work but here's the
Koji
> builds from the last update:
> 
> http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=17333
> http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=17332
> 
Not from the kernel spec file, apparently, even though there's tons of
references in there. I wonder why this changed.

--Sarah

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Kevin Stange wrote:
> On 06/12/2017 05:17 PM, Sarah Newman wrote:
>> Is there any problem moving to 4.9.31? This contains upstream commits
f2e767bb5d6ee0d9 for mpt3sas and
>> 69861e0a52f87333 for dom0 memory mappings.
>
> 4.9.31-27 is tagged for testing presently along with updated firmware.
> I have it running on one hypervisor on Xen-44 and it has been stable for
> 3 days so far.  We could probably use some more testing before tagging
> it stable.
>
> I have been having some dom0 page allocation failures on 4.9.25... does
> 69861e0a52f87333 address that issue?  I was having trouble determining
> if it was related.
Hello,

I do also have issues since nearly 2 months.
My testing server has been stable till version 4.9.15 + xen-4.6.3-12.el6
Since I have installed 4.9.23-26.el6, I get oopses in xen_netback
4.9.23, 4.9.25 - oopses.
I have installed 4.9.31-27.el6.x86_64 today. Got oops after 30 minutes:

Logged oops:

[ 1957.764097] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
0000000000000008
[ 1957.764123] IP: [<ffffffffc00cfd88>] xenvif_rx_dequeue+0x58/0xc0
[xen_netback]
[ 1957.764142] PGD 0 [ 1957.764145] 
[ 1957.764150] Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP
[ 1957.764154] Modules linked in: xt_physdev br_netfilter xt_mac ebt_arp
xen_pciback xen_gntalloc hwmon_vid ebtable_filter ebtables bridge
8021q mrp garp stp llc xt_CT xt_addrtype iptable_raw nf_log_ipv4 nf_log_common
xt_LOG xt_limit xt_owner iptable_mangle iptable_nat nf_connt
rack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 nf_nat_ipv4 nf_nat ip6t_REJECT nf_reject_ipv6
nf_conntrack_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv6 xt_state nf_conntrack ip6table_filt
er ip6_tables blktap xen_netback xen_blkback xen_gntdev xen_evtchn xenfs
xen_privcmd ppdev parport_pc parport fjes pcspkr serio_raw 3c59x a
sus_atk0110 k8temp via_rhine mii i2c_viapro shpchp raid1 ata_generic sata_via
uas usb_storage
[ 1957.764253] CPU: 0 PID: 2422 Comm: vif1.0-q0-guest Not tainted
4.9.31-27.el6.x86_64 #1
[ 1957.764258] Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product Name/K8V-VM,
BIOS 0902    05/14/2007
[ 1957.764263] task: ffff880008d08000 task.stack: ffffc90040490000
[ 1957.764267] RIP: e030:[<ffffffffc00cfd88>]  [<ffffffffc00cfd88>]
xenvif_rx_dequeue+0x58/0xc0 [xen_netback]
[ 1957.764276] RSP: e02b:ffffc90040493e68  EFLAGS: 00010086
[ 1957.764280] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff880017906700 RCX: ffff8800194f3420
[ 1957.764284] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffc90040493e08 RDI: ffffc900404ff9ec
[ 1957.764289] RBP: ffffc90040493e78 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffc900404f57f8
[ 1957.764293] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffff880008d08a48 R12: ffffc900404f5000
[ 1957.764297] R13: ffff8800181248c0 R14: ffff880017906700 R15: ffff880008d08000
[ 1957.764306] FS:  00007f69112947c0(0000) GS:ffff88001f800000(0000)
knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 1957.764311] CS:  e033 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[ 1957.764315] CR2: 0000000000000008 CR3: 00000000171dc000 CR4: 0000000000000660
[ 1957.764319] Stack:
[ 1957.764322]  ffffc900404f5000 ffffc900404ff9d8 ffffc90040493ea8
ffffffffc00d0761
[ 1957.764329]  ffff8800192ac380 ffffc90040493eb8 ffffc900404f5000
ffffffffc00d06c0
[ 1957.764336]  ffffc90040493f48 ffffffff810c62b5 0000000000000000
0000026300000000
[ 1957.764343] Call Trace:
[ 1957.764351]  [<ffffffffc00d0761>] xenvif_kthread_guest_rx+0xa1/0x16c
[xen_netback]
[ 1957.764358]  [<ffffffffc00d06c0>] ? xenvif_queue_carrier_on+0x70/0x70
[xen_netback]
[ 1957.764368]  [<ffffffff810c62b5>] kthread+0xe5/0x100
[ 1957.764374]  [<ffffffff810c61d0>] ? __kthread_init_worker+0x40/0x40
[ 1957.764380]  [<ffffffff818d99d5>] ret_from_fork+0x25/0x30
[ 1957.764384] Code: c3 0f 84 87 00 00 00 48 85 db 74 6a 41 83 ac 24 e8 a9 00 00
01 48 8b 43 08 48 8b 13 48 c7 43 08 00 00 00 00 48 c7 03 0
0 00 00 00 <48> 89 42 08 48 89 10 41 8b 84 24 f4 a9 00 00 2b 83 80 00 00
00
[ 1957.764435] RIP  [<ffffffffc00cfd88>] xenvif_rx_dequeue+0x58/0xc0
[xen_netback]
[ 1957.764442]  RSP <ffffc90040493e68>
[ 1957.764445] CR2: 0000000000000008
[ 1957.764598] ---[ end trace 5165c39d896ae905 ]---


Got the same bug on 4.9.25.
This machine does not do anything intensive - network, cpu or I/O.


I had issues with 4.9.25 (page allocation) on another server, too.

I hope it helps.

-- 
Piotr Gackiewicz