Re: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report (xl bits)

From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
To: Gianni Tedesco <gianni.tedesco@citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
	Kamala Narasimhan <kamala.narasimhan@gmail.com>,
	Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>Stefano, "Zheng,
	Shaohui" <shaohui.zheng@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report (xl bits)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:35:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101241832470.7277@kaball-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1295888759.28333.14.camel@qabil.uk.xensource.com>

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Gianni Tedesco wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-22 at 09:39 +0000, Zheng, Shaohui wrote:
> > Hi, All
> > 	Intel QA conducted a full validation for xen 4.1 rc1, it includes VT-x, VT-d,  SRIOV, RAS, TXT and xl tools testing. 24 issues were exposed. Refer the bug list, please.
> > 
> > 	We already assigned 14 bugs to Intel developers (which has an 'Intel' tag in the bug title), most of the rest 10 bugs are related xl command.  For the these bugs, need community's help to fix them. 
> > 
> > Version information:
> > Change Set: 22764:75b6287626ee
> > pvops dom0: 862ef97190f6b54d35c76c93fb2b8fadd7ab7d68
> > ioemu : 1c304816043c0ffe14d20d6006d6165cb7fddb9b
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > xl command(7 bugs)
> > 1. xl does not check the duplicated configure file and image file (Community)
> > http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1711
> 
> Yes this is kind of known about, we give the user a lot of rope. We had
> already discussed that it's a bug for two domains to have the same name.
> A check for this condition would catch the 'oops I ran the same config
> twice' case.
> 
> As for going everywhere and preventing two domains from sharing a disk
> image it would be a bit more far-reaching and we'd need to think about
> legit cases where people might use shared r/w disk images with a
> separate synchronisation protocol...

Yes.
I don't think the duplicated image file problem should be solved at the
xl level, however we should at least try to avoid creating domains with
an already existing name.

> > 2. [vt-d] Can not detach the device which was assigned statically (Community)
> > http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1717
> > 3. guest shows white screen when boot guest with NIC assigned (Community)
> > http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1712
> > 4. memory corruption was reported by "xl" with device pass-throu (Community)
> > http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1713
> > 5. [vt-d] fail to passthrou two or more devices to guest (Community)
> > http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1710
> 
> We are well aware that pci passthrough is buggy in xl. At the very
> least, not all the safety checks are done. There are also problems with
> IRQ's becoming unmapped when one of two pass-through devices which share
> one or more IRQ's is detached. There are probably other issues too.

IanC is trying to fix some passthrough problems, hopefully the resulting
patch series will make it in time for the 4.1 release.