+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #524052 +++
Description of problem:
Attempted to boot a fully virtualized DomU with rawhide's 2.6.31-14.fc12.x86_64 for installation hangs almost immediately.
Steps to Reproduce:
Select install from the boot menu
Hangs after printing the following
Probing EDD (edd=off to disable)... ok
There are no logs in xm dmesg
Note, a 32-bit HVM boots and installs on a 32-bit host
--- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-09-17 13:36:35 EDT ---
Moving to kernel-xen for now since a 64-bit HVM rawhide boots past this point on an upstream Xen host.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux major release. Product Management has requested further
review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux Major release. This request is not yet committed for
Ok, I've bisected this down on the upstream kernel to a patch that enables xsave,
Overriding that capability as "not supported" allows the HVM guest to boot.
I'm looking at how to deal with it now. There's been some discussion of it in upstream Xen, but nothing too conclusive as far as I can tell.
Masking this capability from the guest might be the best option.
This bug will probably be closed as not a bug, since the problem is best solved in the hypervisor, see bug 524052. Regarding the 32-bit HVM booting that was stated in comment 1. That was reported from a different machine, probably one not supporting xsave. On my machine 32-on-32 fails the same way as with 64b.
Also note: if you need to boot f12/RHEL6 on a hypervisor that doesn't mask XSAVE you can still do it by adding noxsave to the kernel command line.
Installing a RHEL6 guest on a RHEL5.4 hypervisor will most likely fail on relatively recent hardware. This is because RHEL5.4 does not hide new hardware features that are supported by the 2.6.32 kernel but not by the hypervisor. RHEL5.5 fixed this.
Should we require release notes for this, or should we just close it as NOTABUG?
Well it is correct to close this as not a bug as it is not a RHEL 6 issue. But the question remains if we should be z-streaming the RHEL 5.5 fix for 5.4.z
and RHEV too.