qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] PPC* and Sparc32 crash


From: Avi Kivity
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] PPC* and Sparc32 crash
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 22:31:12 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0

On 08/25/2011 08:33 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
(gdb) bt
#0  0x00007ffff3da2165 in *__GI_raise (sig=<value optimized out>)
     at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:64
#1  0x00007ffff3da4f70 in *__GI_abort () at abort.c:92
#2  0x00007ffff3d9b2b1 in *__GI___assert_fail (
     assertion=0x5c7390 "info->qdev.size>= sizeof(SysBusDevice)",
     file=<value optimized out>, line=0x9c,
     function=0x5c73c0 "sysbus_register_withprop") at assert.c:81
#3  0x000000000052e000 in sysbus_register_withprop (info=<value optimized out>)
     at /src/qemu/hw/sysbus.c:156
#4  0x000000000041d9c3 in module_call_init (type=<value optimized out>)
     at /src/qemu/module.c:78
#5  0x0000000000518b64 in main (argc=<value optimized out>,
     argv=<value optimized out>, envp=<value optimized out>)
     at /src/qemu/vl.c:3241
(gdb) up 3
#3  0x000000000052e000 in sysbus_register_withprop (info=<value optimized out>)
     at /src/qemu/hw/sysbus.c:156
156         assert(info->qdev.size>= sizeof(SysBusDevice));
(gdb) p *info
Cannot access memory at address 0x0
(gdb) p info
$1 =<value optimized out>

-O1 fixes that.

(gdb) up
#4  0x000000000041d9c3 in module_call_init (type=<value optimized out>)
     at /src/qemu/module.c:78
78              e->init();
(gdb) p *e
$2 = {type = MODULE_INIT_BLOCK,
   init = 0x53cf50<sun4c_intctl_register_devices>, node = {
     tqe_next = 0x1051130, tqe_prev = 0x10510b0}}

static SysBusDeviceInfo sun4c_intctl_info = {
    .init = sun4c_intctl_init1,
    .qdev.name  = "sun4c_intctl",
    .qdev.size  = sizeof(Sun4c_INTCTLState),
    .qdev.vmsd  = &vmstate_sun4c_intctl,
    .qdev.reset = sun4c_intctl_reset,
};

typedef struct Sun4c_INTCTLState {
    SysBusDevice busdev;
    ...
}

so the code looks fine. Can you dig deeper? Did something stomp on qdev.size?

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]