Bug 1152593

Summary: resizing to too large display size trigger qxl guest bug: requested primary larger then framebuffer size
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Reporter: David Jaša <djasa>
Component: xorg-x11-drv-qxlAssignee: Default Assignee for SPICE Bugs <rh-spice-bugs>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Desktop QE <desktop-qa-list>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 7.1CC: fidencio, marcandre.lureau, rbalakri
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-10-17 10:01:52 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Xorg.1.log none

Description David Jaša 2014-10-14 13:35:41 UTC 
Created attachment 946893 [details]
Xorg.1.log

Description of problem:
resizing to too large display size trigger qxl guest bug: requested primary larger then framebuffer size

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
xorg-x11-drv-qxl-0.1.1-9.el7.x86_64

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. enable 4 displays, resize all to full HD or larger
    (if the bug doesn't occur, reduce ram/vram of your qxl device and try again)
2.
3.

Actual results:
  * guest display can't recover in any way and client switches to "Waiting
    for display i..." message (only guest reboot can fix it) - bug 1152574
  * guest kernel oopses - bug 1152509

Expected results:
qxl somehow handles request of primary surface larger than framebuffer

Additional info:

logs:
qemu, qxl device & qxl driver:  attachment 946869 [details]
client log: attachment 946874 [details]
xorg log: newly attached
Comment 1 David Jaša 2014-10-15 12:06:31 UTC 
I hit the bug originally with qxl ram/vram both set to 64MB, displays 1-3 at ~900x1000 px and display 4 at ~1980x1000 px. I could reproduce even after increase of ram/vram to 128 MB and then further to 256 MB.
Comment 2 Marc-Andre Lureau 2014-10-16 08:14:12 UTC 
looks like a 1127552 dup to me
Comment 3 Fabiano Fidêncio 2014-10-17 10:01:52 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1127552 ***