restructure results

1 files changed, 1322 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/results/classifier/zero-shot/002/other/21247035 b/results/classifier/zero-shot/002/other/21247035
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..14cc03c6d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/zero-shot/002/other/21247035
@@ -0,0 +1,1322 @@
+other: 0.640
+mistranslation: 0.584
+instruction: 0.508
+semantic: 0.374
+boot: 0.345
+
+[Qemu-devel] [BUG] I/O thread segfault for QEMU on s390x
+
+Hi,
+I have been noticing some segfaults for QEMU on s390x, and I have been
+hitting this issue quite reliably (at least once in 10 runs of a test
+case). The qemu version is 2.11.50, and I have systemd created coredumps
+when this happens.
+
+Here is a back trace of the segfaulting thread:
+
+
+#0  0x000003ffafed202c in swapcontext () from /lib64/libc.so.6
+#1  0x000002aa355c02ee in qemu_coroutine_new () at
+util/coroutine-ucontext.c:164
+#2  0x000002aa355bec34 in qemu_coroutine_create
+(address@hidden <blk_aio_read_entry>,
+address@hidden) at util/qemu-coroutine.c:76
+#3  0x000002aa35510262 in blk_aio_prwv (blk=0x2aa65fbefa0,
+offset=<optimized out>, bytes=<optimized out>, qiov=0x3ffa002a9c0,
+address@hidden <blk_aio_read_entry>, flags=0,
+cb=0x2aa35340a50 <virtio_blk_rw_complete>, opaque=0x3ffa002a960) at
+block/block-backend.c:1299
+#4  0x000002aa35510376 in blk_aio_preadv (blk=<optimized out>,
+offset=<optimized out>, qiov=<optimized out>, flags=<optimized out>,
+cb=<optimized out>, opaque=0x3ffa002a960) at block/block-backend.c:1392
+#5  0x000002aa3534114e in submit_requests (niov=<optimized out>,
+num_reqs=<optimized out>, start=<optimized out>, mrb=<optimized out>,
+blk=<optimized out>) at
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:372
+#6  virtio_blk_submit_multireq (blk=<optimized out>,
+address@hidden) at
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:402
+#7  0x000002aa353422e0 in virtio_blk_handle_vq (s=0x2aa6611e7d8,
+vq=0x3ffb0f5f010) at /usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:620
+#8  0x000002aa3536655a in virtio_queue_notify_aio_vq
+(address@hidden) at
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/virtio/virtio.c:1515
+#9  0x000002aa35366cd6 in virtio_queue_notify_aio_vq (vq=0x3ffb0f5f010)
+at /usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/virtio/virtio.c:1511
+#10 virtio_queue_host_notifier_aio_poll (opaque=0x3ffb0f5f078) at
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/virtio/virtio.c:2409
+#11 0x000002aa355a8ba4 in run_poll_handlers_once
+(address@hidden) at util/aio-posix.c:497
+#12 0x000002aa355a9b74 in run_poll_handlers (max_ns=<optimized out>,
+ctx=0x2aa65f99310) at util/aio-posix.c:534
+#13 try_poll_mode (blocking=true, ctx=0x2aa65f99310) at util/aio-posix.c:562
+#14 aio_poll (ctx=0x2aa65f99310, address@hidden) at
+util/aio-posix.c:602
+#15 0x000002aa353d2d0a in iothread_run (opaque=0x2aa65f990f0) at
+iothread.c:60
+#16 0x000003ffb0f07e82 in start_thread () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
+#17 0x000003ffaff91596 in thread_start () from /lib64/libc.so.6
+I don't have much knowledge about i/o threads and the block layer code
+in QEMU, so I would like to report to the community about this issue.
+I believe this very similar to the bug that I reported upstream couple
+of days ago
+(
+https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-02/msg04452.html
+).
+Any help would be greatly appreciated.
+
+Thanks
+Farhan
+
+On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Farhan Ali <address@hidden> wrote:
+>
+Hi,
+>
+>
+I have been noticing some segfaults for QEMU on s390x, and I have been
+>
+hitting this issue quite reliably (at least once in 10 runs of a test case).
+>
+The qemu version is 2.11.50, and I have systemd created coredumps
+>
+when this happens.
+Can you describe the test case or suggest how to reproduce it for us?
+
+Fam
+
+On 03/02/2018 01:13 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
+On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Farhan Ali <address@hidden> wrote:
+Hi,
+
+I have been noticing some segfaults for QEMU on s390x, and I have been
+hitting this issue quite reliably (at least once in 10 runs of a test case).
+The qemu version is 2.11.50, and I have systemd created coredumps
+when this happens.
+Can you describe the test case or suggest how to reproduce it for us?
+
+Fam
+The test case is with a single guest, running a memory intensive
+workload. The guest has 8 vpcus and 4G of memory.
+Here is the qemu command line, if that helps:
+
+/usr/bin/qemu-kvm -name guest=sles,debug-threads=on \
+-S -object
+secret,id=masterKey0,format=raw,file=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/domain-2-sles/master-key.aes
+\
+-machine s390-ccw-virtio-2.12,accel=kvm,usb=off,dump-guest-core=off \
+-m 4096 -realtime mlock=off -smp 8,sockets=8,cores=1,threads=1 \
+-object iothread,id=iothread1 -object iothread,id=iothread2 -uuid
+b83a596b-3a1a-4ac9-9f3e-d9a4032ee52c \
+-display none -no-user-config -nodefaults -chardev
+socket,id=charmonitor,path=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/domain-2-sles/monitor.sock,server,nowait
+-mon chardev=charmonitor,id=monitor,mode=control -rtc base=utc
+-no-shutdown \
+-boot strict=on -drive
+file=/dev/mapper/360050763998b0883980000002400002b,format=raw,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk0,cache=none,aio=native
+-device
+virtio-blk-ccw,iothread=iothread1,scsi=off,devno=fe.0.0001,drive=drive-virtio-disk0,id=virtio-disk0,bootindex=1
+-drive
+file=/dev/mapper/360050763998b0883980000002800002f,format=raw,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk1,cache=none,aio=native
+-device
+virtio-blk-ccw,iothread=iothread2,scsi=off,devno=fe.0.0002,drive=drive-virtio-disk1,id=virtio-disk1
+-netdev tap,fd=24,id=hostnet0,vhost=on,vhostfd=26 -device
+virtio-net-ccw,netdev=hostnet0,id=net0,mac=02:38:a6:36:e8:1f,devno=fe.0.0000
+-chardev pty,id=charconsole0 -device
+sclpconsole,chardev=charconsole0,id=console0 -device
+virtio-balloon-ccw,id=balloon0,devno=fe.3.ffba -msg timestamp=on
+Please let me know if I need to provide any other information.
+
+Thanks
+Farhan
+
+On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:33:35AM -0500, Farhan Ali wrote:
+>
+Hi,
+>
+>
+I have been noticing some segfaults for QEMU on s390x, and I have been
+>
+hitting this issue quite reliably (at least once in 10 runs of a test case).
+>
+The qemu version is 2.11.50, and I have systemd created coredumps
+>
+when this happens.
+>
+>
+Here is a back trace of the segfaulting thread:
+The backtrace looks normal.
+
+Please post the QEMU command-line and the details of the segfault (which
+memory access faulted?).
+
+>
+#0  0x000003ffafed202c in swapcontext () from /lib64/libc.so.6
+>
+#1  0x000002aa355c02ee in qemu_coroutine_new () at
+>
+util/coroutine-ucontext.c:164
+>
+#2  0x000002aa355bec34 in qemu_coroutine_create
+>
+(address@hidden <blk_aio_read_entry>,
+>
+address@hidden) at util/qemu-coroutine.c:76
+>
+#3  0x000002aa35510262 in blk_aio_prwv (blk=0x2aa65fbefa0, offset=<optimized
+>
+out>, bytes=<optimized out>, qiov=0x3ffa002a9c0,
+>
+address@hidden <blk_aio_read_entry>, flags=0,
+>
+cb=0x2aa35340a50 <virtio_blk_rw_complete>, opaque=0x3ffa002a960) at
+>
+block/block-backend.c:1299
+>
+#4  0x000002aa35510376 in blk_aio_preadv (blk=<optimized out>,
+>
+offset=<optimized out>, qiov=<optimized out>, flags=<optimized out>,
+>
+cb=<optimized out>, opaque=0x3ffa002a960) at block/block-backend.c:1392
+>
+#5  0x000002aa3534114e in submit_requests (niov=<optimized out>,
+>
+num_reqs=<optimized out>, start=<optimized out>, mrb=<optimized out>,
+>
+blk=<optimized out>) at
+>
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:372
+>
+#6  virtio_blk_submit_multireq (blk=<optimized out>,
+>
+address@hidden) at
+>
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:402
+>
+#7  0x000002aa353422e0 in virtio_blk_handle_vq (s=0x2aa6611e7d8,
+>
+vq=0x3ffb0f5f010) at /usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:620
+>
+#8  0x000002aa3536655a in virtio_queue_notify_aio_vq
+>
+(address@hidden) at
+>
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/virtio/virtio.c:1515
+>
+#9  0x000002aa35366cd6 in virtio_queue_notify_aio_vq (vq=0x3ffb0f5f010) at
+>
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/virtio/virtio.c:1511
+>
+#10 virtio_queue_host_notifier_aio_poll (opaque=0x3ffb0f5f078) at
+>
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/virtio/virtio.c:2409
+>
+#11 0x000002aa355a8ba4 in run_poll_handlers_once
+>
+(address@hidden) at util/aio-posix.c:497
+>
+#12 0x000002aa355a9b74 in run_poll_handlers (max_ns=<optimized out>,
+>
+ctx=0x2aa65f99310) at util/aio-posix.c:534
+>
+#13 try_poll_mode (blocking=true, ctx=0x2aa65f99310) at util/aio-posix.c:562
+>
+#14 aio_poll (ctx=0x2aa65f99310, address@hidden) at
+>
+util/aio-posix.c:602
+>
+#15 0x000002aa353d2d0a in iothread_run (opaque=0x2aa65f990f0) at
+>
+iothread.c:60
+>
+#16 0x000003ffb0f07e82 in start_thread () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
+>
+#17 0x000003ffaff91596 in thread_start () from /lib64/libc.so.6
+>
+>
+>
+I don't have much knowledge about i/o threads and the block layer code in
+>
+QEMU, so I would like to report to the community about this issue.
+>
+I believe this very similar to the bug that I reported upstream couple of
+>
+days ago
+>
+(
+https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-02/msg04452.html
+).
+>
+>
+Any help would be greatly appreciated.
+>
+>
+Thanks
+>
+Farhan
+>
+signature.asc
+Description:
+PGP signature
+
+On 03/02/2018 04:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
+On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:33:35AM -0500, Farhan Ali wrote:
+Hi,
+
+I have been noticing some segfaults for QEMU on s390x, and I have been
+hitting this issue quite reliably (at least once in 10 runs of a test case).
+The qemu version is 2.11.50, and I have systemd created coredumps
+when this happens.
+
+Here is a back trace of the segfaulting thread:
+The backtrace looks normal.
+
+Please post the QEMU command-line and the details of the segfault (which
+memory access faulted?).
+I was able to create another crash today and here is the qemu comand line
+
+/usr/bin/qemu-kvm -name guest=sles,debug-threads=on \
+-S -object
+secret,id=masterKey0,format=raw,file=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/domain-2-sles/master-key.aes
+\
+-machine s390-ccw-virtio-2.12,accel=kvm,usb=off,dump-guest-core=off \
+-m 4096 -realtime mlock=off -smp 8,sockets=8,cores=1,threads=1 \
+-object iothread,id=iothread1 -object iothread,id=iothread2 -uuid
+b83a596b-3a1a-4ac9-9f3e-d9a4032ee52c \
+-display none -no-user-config -nodefaults -chardev
+socket,id=charmonitor,path=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/domain-2-sles/monitor.sock,server,nowait
+-mon chardev=charmonitor,id=monitor,mode=control -rtc base=utc
+-no-shutdown \
+-boot strict=on -drive
+file=/dev/mapper/360050763998b0883980000002400002b,format=raw,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk0,cache=none,aio=native
+-device
+virtio-blk-ccw,iothread=iothread1,scsi=off,devno=fe.0.0001,drive=drive-virtio-disk0,id=virtio-disk0,bootindex=1
+-drive
+file=/dev/mapper/360050763998b0883980000002800002f,format=raw,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk1,cache=none,aio=native
+-device
+virtio-blk-ccw,iothread=iothread2,scsi=off,devno=fe.0.0002,drive=drive-virtio-disk1,id=virtio-disk1
+-netdev tap,fd=24,id=hostnet0,vhost=on,vhostfd=26 -device
+virtio-net-ccw,netdev=hostnet0,id=net0,mac=02:38:a6:36:e8:1f,devno=fe.0.0000
+-chardev pty,id=charconsole0 -device
+sclpconsole,chardev=charconsole0,id=console0 -device
+virtio-balloon-ccw,id=balloon0,devno=fe.3.ffba -msg timestamp=on
+This the latest back trace on the segfaulting thread, and it seems to
+segfault in swapcontext.
+Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
+#0  0x000003ff8595202c in swapcontext () from /lib64/libc.so.6
+
+
+This is the remaining back trace:
+
+#0  0x000003ff8595202c in swapcontext () from /lib64/libc.so.6
+#1  0x000002aa33b45566 in qemu_coroutine_new () at
+util/coroutine-ucontext.c:164
+#2  0x000002aa33b43eac in qemu_coroutine_create
+(address@hidden <blk_aio_write_entry>,
+address@hidden) at util/qemu-coroutine.c:76
+#3  0x000002aa33a954da in blk_aio_prwv (blk=0x2aa4f0efda0,
+offset=<optimized out>, bytes=<optimized out>, qiov=0x3ff74019080,
+address@hidden <blk_aio_write_entry>, flags=0,
+cb=0x2aa338c62e8 <virtio_blk_rw_complete>, opaque=0x3ff74019020) at
+block/block-backend.c:1299
+#4  0x000002aa33a9563e in blk_aio_pwritev (blk=<optimized out>,
+offset=<optimized out>, qiov=<optimized out>, flags=<optimized out>,
+cb=<optimized out>, opaque=0x3ff74019020) at block/block-backend.c:1400
+#5  0x000002aa338c6a38 in submit_requests (niov=<optimized out>,
+num_reqs=1, start=<optimized out>, mrb=0x3ff831fe6e0, blk=<optimized
+out>) at /usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:369
+#6  virtio_blk_submit_multireq (blk=<optimized out>,
+address@hidden) at
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:426
+#7  0x000002aa338c7b78 in virtio_blk_handle_vq (s=0x2aa4f2507c8,
+vq=0x3ff869df010) at /usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:620
+#8  0x000002aa338ebdf2 in virtio_queue_notify_aio_vq (vq=0x3ff869df010)
+at /usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/virtio/virtio.c:1515
+#9  0x000002aa33b2df46 in aio_dispatch_handlers
+(address@hidden) at util/aio-posix.c:406
+#10 0x000002aa33b2eb50 in aio_poll (ctx=0x2aa4f0ca050,
+address@hidden) at util/aio-posix.c:692
+#11 0x000002aa33957f6a in iothread_run (opaque=0x2aa4f0c9630) at
+iothread.c:60
+#12 0x000003ff86987e82 in start_thread () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
+#13 0x000003ff85a11596 in thread_start () from /lib64/libc.so.6
+Backtrace stopped: previous frame identical to this frame (corrupt stack?)
+
+On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 10:30:57AM -0500, Farhan Ali wrote:
+>
+>
+>
+On 03/02/2018 04:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
+>
+> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:33:35AM -0500, Farhan Ali wrote:
+>
+> > Hi,
+>
+> >
+>
+> > I have been noticing some segfaults for QEMU on s390x, and I have been
+>
+> > hitting this issue quite reliably (at least once in 10 runs of a test
+>
+> > case).
+>
+> > The qemu version is 2.11.50, and I have systemd created coredumps
+>
+> > when this happens.
+>
+> >
+>
+> > Here is a back trace of the segfaulting thread:
+>
+> The backtrace looks normal.
+>
+>
+>
+> Please post the QEMU command-line and the details of the segfault (which
+>
+> memory access faulted?).
+>
+>
+>
+>
+>
+I was able to create another crash today and here is the qemu comand line
+>
+>
+/usr/bin/qemu-kvm -name guest=sles,debug-threads=on \
+>
+-S -object
+>
+secret,id=masterKey0,format=raw,file=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/domain-2-sles/master-key.aes
+>
+\
+>
+-machine s390-ccw-virtio-2.12,accel=kvm,usb=off,dump-guest-core=off \
+>
+-m 4096 -realtime mlock=off -smp 8,sockets=8,cores=1,threads=1 \
+>
+-object iothread,id=iothread1 -object iothread,id=iothread2 -uuid
+>
+b83a596b-3a1a-4ac9-9f3e-d9a4032ee52c \
+>
+-display none -no-user-config -nodefaults -chardev
+>
+socket,id=charmonitor,path=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/domain-2-sles/monitor.sock,server,nowait
+>
+>
+-mon chardev=charmonitor,id=monitor,mode=control -rtc base=utc -no-shutdown
+>
+\
+>
+-boot strict=on -drive
+>
+file=/dev/mapper/360050763998b0883980000002400002b,format=raw,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk0,cache=none,aio=native
+>
+-device
+>
+virtio-blk-ccw,iothread=iothread1,scsi=off,devno=fe.0.0001,drive=drive-virtio-disk0,id=virtio-disk0,bootindex=1
+>
+-drive
+>
+file=/dev/mapper/360050763998b0883980000002800002f,format=raw,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk1,cache=none,aio=native
+>
+-device
+>
+virtio-blk-ccw,iothread=iothread2,scsi=off,devno=fe.0.0002,drive=drive-virtio-disk1,id=virtio-disk1
+>
+-netdev tap,fd=24,id=hostnet0,vhost=on,vhostfd=26 -device
+>
+virtio-net-ccw,netdev=hostnet0,id=net0,mac=02:38:a6:36:e8:1f,devno=fe.0.0000
+>
+-chardev pty,id=charconsole0 -device
+>
+sclpconsole,chardev=charconsole0,id=console0 -device
+>
+virtio-balloon-ccw,id=balloon0,devno=fe.3.ffba -msg timestamp=on
+>
+>
+>
+This the latest back trace on the segfaulting thread, and it seems to
+>
+segfault in swapcontext.
+>
+>
+Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
+>
+#0  0x000003ff8595202c in swapcontext () from /lib64/libc.so.6
+Please include the following gdb output:
+
+  (gdb) disas swapcontext
+  (gdb) i r
+
+That way it's possible to see which instruction faulted and which
+registers were being accessed.
+
+>
+This is the remaining back trace:
+>
+>
+#0  0x000003ff8595202c in swapcontext () from /lib64/libc.so.6
+>
+#1  0x000002aa33b45566 in qemu_coroutine_new () at
+>
+util/coroutine-ucontext.c:164
+>
+#2  0x000002aa33b43eac in qemu_coroutine_create
+>
+(address@hidden <blk_aio_write_entry>,
+>
+address@hidden) at util/qemu-coroutine.c:76
+>
+#3  0x000002aa33a954da in blk_aio_prwv (blk=0x2aa4f0efda0, offset=<optimized
+>
+out>, bytes=<optimized out>, qiov=0x3ff74019080,
+>
+address@hidden <blk_aio_write_entry>, flags=0,
+>
+cb=0x2aa338c62e8 <virtio_blk_rw_complete>, opaque=0x3ff74019020) at
+>
+block/block-backend.c:1299
+>
+#4  0x000002aa33a9563e in blk_aio_pwritev (blk=<optimized out>,
+>
+offset=<optimized out>, qiov=<optimized out>, flags=<optimized out>,
+>
+cb=<optimized out>, opaque=0x3ff74019020) at block/block-backend.c:1400
+>
+#5  0x000002aa338c6a38 in submit_requests (niov=<optimized out>, num_reqs=1,
+>
+start=<optimized out>, mrb=0x3ff831fe6e0, blk=<optimized out>) at
+>
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:369
+>
+#6  virtio_blk_submit_multireq (blk=<optimized out>,
+>
+address@hidden) at
+>
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:426
+>
+#7  0x000002aa338c7b78 in virtio_blk_handle_vq (s=0x2aa4f2507c8,
+>
+vq=0x3ff869df010) at /usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/block/virtio-blk.c:620
+>
+#8  0x000002aa338ebdf2 in virtio_queue_notify_aio_vq (vq=0x3ff869df010) at
+>
+/usr/src/debug/qemu-2.11.50/hw/virtio/virtio.c:1515
+>
+#9  0x000002aa33b2df46 in aio_dispatch_handlers
+>
+(address@hidden) at util/aio-posix.c:406
+>
+#10 0x000002aa33b2eb50 in aio_poll (ctx=0x2aa4f0ca050,
+>
+address@hidden) at util/aio-posix.c:692
+>
+#11 0x000002aa33957f6a in iothread_run (opaque=0x2aa4f0c9630) at
+>
+iothread.c:60
+>
+#12 0x000003ff86987e82 in start_thread () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
+>
+#13 0x000003ff85a11596 in thread_start () from /lib64/libc.so.6
+>
+Backtrace stopped: previous frame identical to this frame (corrupt stack?)
+>
+signature.asc
+Description:
+PGP signature
+
+On 03/05/2018 06:03 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
+Please include the following gdb output:
+
+   (gdb) disas swapcontext
+   (gdb) i r
+
+That way it's possible to see which instruction faulted and which
+registers were being accessed.
+here is the disas out for swapcontext, this is on a coredump with
+debugging symbols enabled for qemu. So the addresses from the previous
+dump is a little different.
+(gdb) disas swapcontext
+Dump of assembler code for function swapcontext:
+   0x000003ff90751fb8 <+0>:       lgr     %r1,%r2
+   0x000003ff90751fbc <+4>:       lgr     %r0,%r3
+   0x000003ff90751fc0 <+8>:       stfpc   248(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fc4 <+12>:      std     %f0,256(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fc8 <+16>:      std     %f1,264(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fcc <+20>:      std     %f2,272(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fd0 <+24>:      std     %f3,280(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fd4 <+28>:      std     %f4,288(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fd8 <+32>:      std     %f5,296(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fdc <+36>:      std     %f6,304(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fe0 <+40>:      std     %f7,312(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fe4 <+44>:      std     %f8,320(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fe8 <+48>:      std     %f9,328(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751fec <+52>:      std     %f10,336(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751ff0 <+56>:      std     %f11,344(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751ff4 <+60>:      std     %f12,352(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751ff8 <+64>:      std     %f13,360(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90751ffc <+68>:      std     %f14,368(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90752000 <+72>:      std     %f15,376(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90752004 <+76>:      slgr    %r2,%r2
+   0x000003ff90752008 <+80>:      stam    %a0,%a15,184(%r1)
+   0x000003ff9075200c <+84>:      stmg    %r0,%r15,56(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90752012 <+90>:      la      %r2,2
+   0x000003ff90752016 <+94>:      lgr     %r5,%r0
+   0x000003ff9075201a <+98>:      la      %r3,384(%r5)
+   0x000003ff9075201e <+102>:     la      %r4,384(%r1)
+   0x000003ff90752022 <+106>:     lghi    %r5,8
+   0x000003ff90752026 <+110>:     svc     175
+   0x000003ff90752028 <+112>:     lgr     %r5,%r0
+=> 0x000003ff9075202c <+116>:  lfpc    248(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752030 <+120>:     ld      %f0,256(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752034 <+124>:     ld      %f1,264(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752038 <+128>:     ld      %f2,272(%r5)
+   0x000003ff9075203c <+132>:     ld      %f3,280(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752040 <+136>:     ld      %f4,288(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752044 <+140>:     ld      %f5,296(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752048 <+144>:     ld      %f6,304(%r5)
+   0x000003ff9075204c <+148>:     ld      %f7,312(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752050 <+152>:     ld      %f8,320(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752054 <+156>:     ld      %f9,328(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752058 <+160>:     ld      %f10,336(%r5)
+   0x000003ff9075205c <+164>:     ld      %f11,344(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752060 <+168>:     ld      %f12,352(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752064 <+172>:     ld      %f13,360(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752068 <+176>:     ld      %f14,368(%r5)
+   0x000003ff9075206c <+180>:     ld      %f15,376(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752070 <+184>:     lam     %a2,%a15,192(%r5)
+   0x000003ff90752074 <+188>:     lmg     %r0,%r15,56(%r5)
+   0x000003ff9075207a <+194>:     br      %r14
+End of assembler dump.
+
+(gdb) i r
+r0             0x0      0
+r1             0x3ff8fe7de40    4396165881408
+r2             0x0      0
+r3             0x3ff8fe7e1c0    4396165882304
+r4             0x3ff8fe7dfc0    4396165881792
+r5             0x0      0
+r6             0xffffffff88004880       18446744071696304256
+r7             0x3ff880009e0    4396033247712
+r8             0x27ff89000      10736930816
+r9             0x3ff88001460    4396033250400
+r10            0x1000   4096
+r11            0x1261be0        19274720
+r12            0x3ff88001e00    4396033252864
+r13            0x14d0bc0        21826496
+r14            0x1312ac8        19999432
+r15            0x3ff8fe7dc80    4396165880960
+pc             0x3ff9075202c    0x3ff9075202c <swapcontext+116>
+cc             0x2      2
+
+On 03/05/2018 07:45 PM, Farhan Ali wrote:
+>
+>
+>
+On 03/05/2018 06:03 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
+>
+> Please include the following gdb output:
+>
+>
+>
+>    (gdb) disas swapcontext
+>
+>    (gdb) i r
+>
+>
+>
+> That way it's possible to see which instruction faulted and which
+>
+> registers were being accessed.
+>
+>
+>
+here is the disas out for swapcontext, this is on a coredump with debugging
+>
+symbols enabled for qemu. So the addresses from the previous dump is a little
+>
+different.
+>
+>
+>
+(gdb) disas swapcontext
+>
+Dump of assembler code for function swapcontext:
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fb8 <+0>:    lgr    %r1,%r2
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fbc <+4>:    lgr    %r0,%r3
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fc0 <+8>:    stfpc    248(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fc4 <+12>:    std    %f0,256(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fc8 <+16>:    std    %f1,264(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fcc <+20>:    std    %f2,272(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fd0 <+24>:    std    %f3,280(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fd4 <+28>:    std    %f4,288(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fd8 <+32>:    std    %f5,296(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fdc <+36>:    std    %f6,304(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fe0 <+40>:    std    %f7,312(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fe4 <+44>:    std    %f8,320(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fe8 <+48>:    std    %f9,328(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751fec <+52>:    std    %f10,336(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751ff0 <+56>:    std    %f11,344(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751ff4 <+60>:    std    %f12,352(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751ff8 <+64>:    std    %f13,360(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90751ffc <+68>:    std    %f14,368(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752000 <+72>:    std    %f15,376(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752004 <+76>:    slgr    %r2,%r2
+>
+   0x000003ff90752008 <+80>:    stam    %a0,%a15,184(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff9075200c <+84>:    stmg    %r0,%r15,56(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752012 <+90>:    la    %r2,2
+>
+   0x000003ff90752016 <+94>:    lgr    %r5,%r0
+>
+   0x000003ff9075201a <+98>:    la    %r3,384(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff9075201e <+102>:    la    %r4,384(%r1)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752022 <+106>:    lghi    %r5,8
+>
+   0x000003ff90752026 <+110>:    svc    175
+sys_rt_sigprocmask. r0 should not be changed by the system call.
+
+>
+   0x000003ff90752028 <+112>:    lgr    %r5,%r0
+>
+=> 0x000003ff9075202c <+116>:    lfpc    248(%r5)
+so r5 is zero and it was loaded from r0. r0 was loaded from r3 (which is the 
+2nd parameter to this
+function). Now this is odd.
+
+>
+   0x000003ff90752030 <+120>:    ld    %f0,256(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752034 <+124>:    ld    %f1,264(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752038 <+128>:    ld    %f2,272(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff9075203c <+132>:    ld    %f3,280(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752040 <+136>:    ld    %f4,288(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752044 <+140>:    ld    %f5,296(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752048 <+144>:    ld    %f6,304(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff9075204c <+148>:    ld    %f7,312(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752050 <+152>:    ld    %f8,320(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752054 <+156>:    ld    %f9,328(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752058 <+160>:    ld    %f10,336(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff9075205c <+164>:    ld    %f11,344(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752060 <+168>:    ld    %f12,352(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752064 <+172>:    ld    %f13,360(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752068 <+176>:    ld    %f14,368(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff9075206c <+180>:    ld    %f15,376(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752070 <+184>:    lam    %a2,%a15,192(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff90752074 <+188>:    lmg    %r0,%r15,56(%r5)
+>
+   0x000003ff9075207a <+194>:    br    %r14
+>
+End of assembler dump.
+>
+>
+(gdb) i r
+>
+r0             0x0    0
+>
+r1             0x3ff8fe7de40    4396165881408
+>
+r2             0x0    0
+>
+r3             0x3ff8fe7e1c0    4396165882304
+>
+r4             0x3ff8fe7dfc0    4396165881792
+>
+r5             0x0    0
+>
+r6             0xffffffff88004880    18446744071696304256
+>
+r7             0x3ff880009e0    4396033247712
+>
+r8             0x27ff89000    10736930816
+>
+r9             0x3ff88001460    4396033250400
+>
+r10            0x1000    4096
+>
+r11            0x1261be0    19274720
+>
+r12            0x3ff88001e00    4396033252864
+>
+r13            0x14d0bc0    21826496
+>
+r14            0x1312ac8    19999432
+>
+r15            0x3ff8fe7dc80    4396165880960
+>
+pc             0x3ff9075202c    0x3ff9075202c <swapcontext+116>
+>
+cc             0x2    2
+
+On 5 March 2018 at 18:54, Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden> wrote:
+>
+>
+>
+On 03/05/2018 07:45 PM, Farhan Ali wrote:
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752026 <+110>:    svc    175
+>
+>
+sys_rt_sigprocmask. r0 should not be changed by the system call.
+>
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752028 <+112>:    lgr    %r5,%r0
+>
+> => 0x000003ff9075202c <+116>:    lfpc    248(%r5)
+>
+>
+so r5 is zero and it was loaded from r0. r0 was loaded from r3 (which is the
+>
+2nd parameter to this
+>
+function). Now this is odd.
+...particularly given that the only place we call swapcontext()
+the second parameter is always the address of a local variable
+and can't be 0...
+
+thanks
+-- PMM
+
+Do you happen to run with a recent host kernel that has 
+
+commit 7041d28115e91f2144f811ffe8a195c696b1e1d0
+    s390: scrub registers on kernel entry and KVM exit
+
+
+
+
+
+Can you run with this on top
+diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S b/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
+index 13a133a6015c..d6dc0e5e8f74 100644
+--- a/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
++++ b/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
+@@ -426,13 +426,13 @@ ENTRY(system_call)
+        UPDATE_VTIME %r8,%r9,__LC_SYNC_ENTER_TIMER
+        BPENTER __TI_flags(%r12),_TIF_ISOLATE_BP
+        stmg    %r0,%r7,__PT_R0(%r11)
+-       # clear user controlled register to prevent speculative use
+-       xgr     %r0,%r0
+        mvc     __PT_R8(64,%r11),__LC_SAVE_AREA_SYNC
+        mvc     __PT_PSW(16,%r11),__LC_SVC_OLD_PSW
+        mvc     __PT_INT_CODE(4,%r11),__LC_SVC_ILC
+        stg     %r14,__PT_FLAGS(%r11)
+ .Lsysc_do_svc:
++       # clear user controlled register to prevent speculative use
++       xgr     %r0,%r0
+        # load address of system call table
+        lg      %r10,__THREAD_sysc_table(%r13,%r12)
+        llgh    %r8,__PT_INT_CODE+2(%r11)
+
+
+To me it looks like that the critical section cleanup (interrupt during system 
+call entry) might
+save the registers again into ptregs but we have already zeroed out r0.
+This patch moves the clearing of r0 after sysc_do_svc, which should fix the 
+critical
+section cleanup.
+
+Adding Martin and Heiko. Will spin a patch.
+
+
+On 03/05/2018 07:54 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
+>
+>
+>
+On 03/05/2018 07:45 PM, Farhan Ali wrote:
+>
+>
+>
+>
+>
+> On 03/05/2018 06:03 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
+>
+>> Please include the following gdb output:
+>
+>>
+>
+>>    (gdb) disas swapcontext
+>
+>>    (gdb) i r
+>
+>>
+>
+>> That way it's possible to see which instruction faulted and which
+>
+>> registers were being accessed.
+>
+>
+>
+>
+>
+> here is the disas out for swapcontext, this is on a coredump with debugging
+>
+> symbols enabled for qemu. So the addresses from the previous dump is a
+>
+> little different.
+>
+>
+>
+>
+>
+> (gdb) disas swapcontext
+>
+> Dump of assembler code for function swapcontext:
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fb8 <+0>:    lgr    %r1,%r2
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fbc <+4>:    lgr    %r0,%r3
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fc0 <+8>:    stfpc    248(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fc4 <+12>:    std    %f0,256(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fc8 <+16>:    std    %f1,264(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fcc <+20>:    std    %f2,272(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fd0 <+24>:    std    %f3,280(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fd4 <+28>:    std    %f4,288(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fd8 <+32>:    std    %f5,296(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fdc <+36>:    std    %f6,304(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fe0 <+40>:    std    %f7,312(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fe4 <+44>:    std    %f8,320(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fe8 <+48>:    std    %f9,328(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751fec <+52>:    std    %f10,336(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751ff0 <+56>:    std    %f11,344(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751ff4 <+60>:    std    %f12,352(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751ff8 <+64>:    std    %f13,360(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90751ffc <+68>:    std    %f14,368(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752000 <+72>:    std    %f15,376(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752004 <+76>:    slgr    %r2,%r2
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752008 <+80>:    stam    %a0,%a15,184(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff9075200c <+84>:    stmg    %r0,%r15,56(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752012 <+90>:    la    %r2,2
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752016 <+94>:    lgr    %r5,%r0
+>
+>    0x000003ff9075201a <+98>:    la    %r3,384(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff9075201e <+102>:    la    %r4,384(%r1)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752022 <+106>:    lghi    %r5,8
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752026 <+110>:    svc    175
+>
+>
+sys_rt_sigprocmask. r0 should not be changed by the system call.
+>
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752028 <+112>:    lgr    %r5,%r0
+>
+> => 0x000003ff9075202c <+116>:    lfpc    248(%r5)
+>
+>
+so r5 is zero and it was loaded from r0. r0 was loaded from r3 (which is the
+>
+2nd parameter to this
+>
+function). Now this is odd.
+>
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752030 <+120>:    ld    %f0,256(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752034 <+124>:    ld    %f1,264(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752038 <+128>:    ld    %f2,272(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff9075203c <+132>:    ld    %f3,280(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752040 <+136>:    ld    %f4,288(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752044 <+140>:    ld    %f5,296(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752048 <+144>:    ld    %f6,304(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff9075204c <+148>:    ld    %f7,312(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752050 <+152>:    ld    %f8,320(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752054 <+156>:    ld    %f9,328(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752058 <+160>:    ld    %f10,336(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff9075205c <+164>:    ld    %f11,344(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752060 <+168>:    ld    %f12,352(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752064 <+172>:    ld    %f13,360(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752068 <+176>:    ld    %f14,368(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff9075206c <+180>:    ld    %f15,376(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752070 <+184>:    lam    %a2,%a15,192(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff90752074 <+188>:    lmg    %r0,%r15,56(%r5)
+>
+>    0x000003ff9075207a <+194>:    br    %r14
+>
+> End of assembler dump.
+>
+>
+>
+> (gdb) i r
+>
+> r0             0x0    0
+>
+> r1             0x3ff8fe7de40    4396165881408
+>
+> r2             0x0    0
+>
+> r3             0x3ff8fe7e1c0    4396165882304
+>
+> r4             0x3ff8fe7dfc0    4396165881792
+>
+> r5             0x0    0
+>
+> r6             0xffffffff88004880    18446744071696304256
+>
+> r7             0x3ff880009e0    4396033247712
+>
+> r8             0x27ff89000    10736930816
+>
+> r9             0x3ff88001460    4396033250400
+>
+> r10            0x1000    4096
+>
+> r11            0x1261be0    19274720
+>
+> r12            0x3ff88001e00    4396033252864
+>
+> r13            0x14d0bc0    21826496
+>
+> r14            0x1312ac8    19999432
+>
+> r15            0x3ff8fe7dc80    4396165880960
+>
+> pc             0x3ff9075202c    0x3ff9075202c <swapcontext+116>
+>
+> cc             0x2    2
+
+On 03/05/2018 02:08 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
+Do you happen to run with a recent host kernel that has
+
+commit 7041d28115e91f2144f811ffe8a195c696b1e1d0
+     s390: scrub registers on kernel entry and KVM exit
+Yes.
+Can you run with this on top
+diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S b/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
+index 13a133a6015c..d6dc0e5e8f74 100644
+--- a/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
++++ b/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
+@@ -426,13 +426,13 @@ ENTRY(system_call)
+         UPDATE_VTIME %r8,%r9,__LC_SYNC_ENTER_TIMER
+         BPENTER __TI_flags(%r12),_TIF_ISOLATE_BP
+         stmg    %r0,%r7,__PT_R0(%r11)
+-       # clear user controlled register to prevent speculative use
+-       xgr     %r0,%r0
+         mvc     __PT_R8(64,%r11),__LC_SAVE_AREA_SYNC
+         mvc     __PT_PSW(16,%r11),__LC_SVC_OLD_PSW
+         mvc     __PT_INT_CODE(4,%r11),__LC_SVC_ILC
+         stg     %r14,__PT_FLAGS(%r11)
+  .Lsysc_do_svc:
++       # clear user controlled register to prevent speculative use
++       xgr     %r0,%r0
+         # load address of system call table
+         lg      %r10,__THREAD_sysc_table(%r13,%r12)
+         llgh    %r8,__PT_INT_CODE+2(%r11)
+
+
+To me it looks like that the critical section cleanup (interrupt during system 
+call entry) might
+save the registers again into ptregs but we have already zeroed out r0.
+This patch moves the clearing of r0 after sysc_do_svc, which should fix the 
+critical
+section cleanup.
+Okay I will run with this.
+Adding Martin and Heiko. Will spin a patch.
+
+
+On 03/05/2018 07:54 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
+On 03/05/2018 07:45 PM, Farhan Ali wrote:
+On 03/05/2018 06:03 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
+Please include the following gdb output:
+
+    (gdb) disas swapcontext
+    (gdb) i r
+
+That way it's possible to see which instruction faulted and which
+registers were being accessed.
+here is the disas out for swapcontext, this is on a coredump with debugging 
+symbols enabled for qemu. So the addresses from the previous dump is a little 
+different.
+
+
+(gdb) disas swapcontext
+Dump of assembler code for function swapcontext:
+    0x000003ff90751fb8 <+0>:    lgr    %r1,%r2
+    0x000003ff90751fbc <+4>:    lgr    %r0,%r3
+    0x000003ff90751fc0 <+8>:    stfpc    248(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fc4 <+12>:    std    %f0,256(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fc8 <+16>:    std    %f1,264(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fcc <+20>:    std    %f2,272(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fd0 <+24>:    std    %f3,280(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fd4 <+28>:    std    %f4,288(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fd8 <+32>:    std    %f5,296(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fdc <+36>:    std    %f6,304(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fe0 <+40>:    std    %f7,312(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fe4 <+44>:    std    %f8,320(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fe8 <+48>:    std    %f9,328(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751fec <+52>:    std    %f10,336(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751ff0 <+56>:    std    %f11,344(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751ff4 <+60>:    std    %f12,352(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751ff8 <+64>:    std    %f13,360(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90751ffc <+68>:    std    %f14,368(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90752000 <+72>:    std    %f15,376(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90752004 <+76>:    slgr    %r2,%r2
+    0x000003ff90752008 <+80>:    stam    %a0,%a15,184(%r1)
+    0x000003ff9075200c <+84>:    stmg    %r0,%r15,56(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90752012 <+90>:    la    %r2,2
+    0x000003ff90752016 <+94>:    lgr    %r5,%r0
+    0x000003ff9075201a <+98>:    la    %r3,384(%r5)
+    0x000003ff9075201e <+102>:    la    %r4,384(%r1)
+    0x000003ff90752022 <+106>:    lghi    %r5,8
+    0x000003ff90752026 <+110>:    svc    175
+sys_rt_sigprocmask. r0 should not be changed by the system call.
+   0x000003ff90752028 <+112>:    lgr    %r5,%r0
+=> 0x000003ff9075202c <+116>:    lfpc    248(%r5)
+so r5 is zero and it was loaded from r0. r0 was loaded from r3 (which is the 
+2nd parameter to this
+function). Now this is odd.
+   0x000003ff90752030 <+120>:    ld    %f0,256(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752034 <+124>:    ld    %f1,264(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752038 <+128>:    ld    %f2,272(%r5)
+    0x000003ff9075203c <+132>:    ld    %f3,280(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752040 <+136>:    ld    %f4,288(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752044 <+140>:    ld    %f5,296(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752048 <+144>:    ld    %f6,304(%r5)
+    0x000003ff9075204c <+148>:    ld    %f7,312(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752050 <+152>:    ld    %f8,320(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752054 <+156>:    ld    %f9,328(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752058 <+160>:    ld    %f10,336(%r5)
+    0x000003ff9075205c <+164>:    ld    %f11,344(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752060 <+168>:    ld    %f12,352(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752064 <+172>:    ld    %f13,360(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752068 <+176>:    ld    %f14,368(%r5)
+    0x000003ff9075206c <+180>:    ld    %f15,376(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752070 <+184>:    lam    %a2,%a15,192(%r5)
+    0x000003ff90752074 <+188>:    lmg    %r0,%r15,56(%r5)
+    0x000003ff9075207a <+194>:    br    %r14
+End of assembler dump.
+
+(gdb) i r
+r0             0x0    0
+r1             0x3ff8fe7de40    4396165881408
+r2             0x0    0
+r3             0x3ff8fe7e1c0    4396165882304
+r4             0x3ff8fe7dfc0    4396165881792
+r5             0x0    0
+r6             0xffffffff88004880    18446744071696304256
+r7             0x3ff880009e0    4396033247712
+r8             0x27ff89000    10736930816
+r9             0x3ff88001460    4396033250400
+r10            0x1000    4096
+r11            0x1261be0    19274720
+r12            0x3ff88001e00    4396033252864
+r13            0x14d0bc0    21826496
+r14            0x1312ac8    19999432
+r15            0x3ff8fe7dc80    4396165880960
+pc             0x3ff9075202c    0x3ff9075202c <swapcontext+116>
+cc             0x2    2
+
+On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:08:45 +0100
+Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden> wrote:
+
+>
+Do you happen to run with a recent host kernel that has
+>
+>
+commit 7041d28115e91f2144f811ffe8a195c696b1e1d0
+>
+s390: scrub registers on kernel entry and KVM exit
+>
+>
+Can you run with this on top
+>
+diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S b/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
+>
+index 13a133a6015c..d6dc0e5e8f74 100644
+>
+--- a/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
+>
++++ b/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
+>
+@@ -426,13 +426,13 @@ ENTRY(system_call)
+>
+UPDATE_VTIME %r8,%r9,__LC_SYNC_ENTER_TIMER
+>
+BPENTER __TI_flags(%r12),_TIF_ISOLATE_BP
+>
+stmg    %r0,%r7,__PT_R0(%r11)
+>
+-       # clear user controlled register to prevent speculative use
+>
+-       xgr     %r0,%r0
+>
+mvc     __PT_R8(64,%r11),__LC_SAVE_AREA_SYNC
+>
+mvc     __PT_PSW(16,%r11),__LC_SVC_OLD_PSW
+>
+mvc     __PT_INT_CODE(4,%r11),__LC_SVC_ILC
+>
+stg     %r14,__PT_FLAGS(%r11)
+>
+.Lsysc_do_svc:
+>
++       # clear user controlled register to prevent speculative use
+>
++       xgr     %r0,%r0
+>
+# load address of system call table
+>
+lg      %r10,__THREAD_sysc_table(%r13,%r12)
+>
+llgh    %r8,__PT_INT_CODE+2(%r11)
+>
+>
+>
+To me it looks like that the critical section cleanup (interrupt during
+>
+system call entry) might
+>
+save the registers again into ptregs but we have already zeroed out r0.
+>
+This patch moves the clearing of r0 after sysc_do_svc, which should fix the
+>
+critical
+>
+section cleanup.
+>
+>
+Adding Martin and Heiko. Will spin a patch.
+Argh, yes. Thanks Chrisitan, this is it. I have been searching for the bug
+for days now. The point is that if the system call handler is interrupted
+after the xgr but before .Lsysc_do_svc the code at .Lcleanup_system_call 
+repeats the stmg for %r0-%r7 but now %r0 is already zero.
+
+Please commit a patch for this and I'll will queue it up immediately.
+
+-- 
+blue skies,
+   Martin.
+
+"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
+
+On 03/06/2018 01:34 AM, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
+On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:08:45 +0100
+Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden> wrote:
+Do you happen to run with a recent host kernel that has
+
+commit 7041d28115e91f2144f811ffe8a195c696b1e1d0
+     s390: scrub registers on kernel entry and KVM exit
+
+Can you run with this on top
+diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S b/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
+index 13a133a6015c..d6dc0e5e8f74 100644
+--- a/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
++++ b/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
+@@ -426,13 +426,13 @@ ENTRY(system_call)
+         UPDATE_VTIME %r8,%r9,__LC_SYNC_ENTER_TIMER
+         BPENTER __TI_flags(%r12),_TIF_ISOLATE_BP
+         stmg    %r0,%r7,__PT_R0(%r11)
+-       # clear user controlled register to prevent speculative use
+-       xgr     %r0,%r0
+         mvc     __PT_R8(64,%r11),__LC_SAVE_AREA_SYNC
+         mvc     __PT_PSW(16,%r11),__LC_SVC_OLD_PSW
+         mvc     __PT_INT_CODE(4,%r11),__LC_SVC_ILC
+         stg     %r14,__PT_FLAGS(%r11)
+  .Lsysc_do_svc:
++       # clear user controlled register to prevent speculative use
++       xgr     %r0,%r0
+         # load address of system call table
+         lg      %r10,__THREAD_sysc_table(%r13,%r12)
+         llgh    %r8,__PT_INT_CODE+2(%r11)
+
+
+To me it looks like that the critical section cleanup (interrupt during system 
+call entry) might
+save the registers again into ptregs but we have already zeroed out r0.
+This patch moves the clearing of r0 after sysc_do_svc, which should fix the 
+critical
+section cleanup.
+
+Adding Martin and Heiko. Will spin a patch.
+Argh, yes. Thanks Chrisitan, this is it. I have been searching for the bug
+for days now. The point is that if the system call handler is interrupted
+after the xgr but before .Lsysc_do_svc the code at .Lcleanup_system_call
+repeats the stmg for %r0-%r7 but now %r0 is already zero.
+
+Please commit a patch for this and I'll will queue it up immediately.
+This patch does fix the QEMU crash. I haven't seen the crash after
+running the test case for more than a day. Thanks to everyone for taking
+a look at this problem :)
+Thanks
+Farhan
+