[Spice-devel] windows bsod with spice 0.8.1

[Alon Levy]

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:10:31PM +0400, Emre Erenoglu wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Alon Levy <alevy at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 01:45:39PM +0400, Emre Erenoglu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Emre Erenoglu <erenoglu at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I started to see frequent crashes with my guests running windows xp and
> > > > windows server 2003 x86.  The bsod appears on qxldd.dll. I can give
> > further
> > > > info if needed.
> > > >
> > > > The host is Linux x86_64, qemu 0.14, spice 0.8.1. Guest has qxl 0.6.1
> > > > drivers loaded. I may revert back to 0.8.0 since it was not crashing.
> > > > Nothing changed in the guests when I upgraded spice from 0.8.0 to
> > 0.8.1.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Some updates on the original issue. I checked a lot and I found out that
> > the
> > > issue continued with any version of spice and guest qxl drivers.
> > >
> > > I finally digged down to the point that, the qemu comment line which
> > states
> > > "   -global qxl-vga.vram_size=9xxxxxx  " parameter is the problem. When
> > the
> > > guest is started with 9 MB of video memory given as comment line
> > parameter
> > > to qemu, the guest qxldd driver crashes with BSOD.
> >
> > Why was it started with 9MB? anyway, good catch, we should add a check for
> > this
> > in the driver (and probably just refuse to load). Could you open a bug on
> > this
> > in bugzilla.freedesktop.org?
> >
> 
> This is added by libvirt (virt-manager) when launching qemu. Do we need to
> file it against libvirt or against spice?  I will post this to the libvirt
> list also.
> 
> Btw, rather than refusing to load, I think we should just limit the possible
> resolutions. I'm not sure if the resolutions are the issue though. The crash
> was not happening immediately and it was working OK with that 9 MB memory.
> When I launched outlook, or IE8, or just in the middle of an application, it
> could crash and bsod.

But that number doesn't make any sense - the spice default is 64MB, we never tested
with less then that. It is probably fixable like you say, but until that's fixed why
not stick to the spice default?

> -- 
> Emre

> _______________________________________________
> Spice-devel mailing list
> Spice-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel