Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Z3JhaGF » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:18:01


I have a virtual machine with Debian installed. It has worked fairly well,
until I installed the latest kernel packages. (Fortunately, I kept the old
ones, so I can still boot.)

I won't re-type everything here. Please refer to this bug report:

http://www.yqcomputer.com/

I would also like to file a bug report with Microsoft, but I honestly can't
figure out how to do so.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Colin Barn » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 02:48:10

Linux is not supported in VPC so a bug report is pretty meaningless. The
Linux Additions are only supported in Virtual Server and I don't recall
Debian being one of the supported distributions.

 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Z3JhaGF » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:15:02


It should not be a question of whether Linux is supported, but rather,
whether VPC correctly emulates real hardware. Apparently it doesn't, because
the same software works perfectly on real hardware. IMHO, that indicates a
bug in VPC.

However, it is conceivable that Microsoft's goal is not to provide complete
and correct hardware emulation, but rather just to allow their customers to
run a Windows VM on a Windows PC. If that's the case, then you're right.


I don't use them anyway. I'm not willing to run a tainted kernel, nor to
replace files supplied by my distribution with proprietary binaries.
Furthermore, they don't appear to offer any features that I would actually
find useful.


My choice of distribution should actually be irrelevant to a VM product,
unless someone can prove that one of Debian's patches to the kernel is
incorrect.

Your point is valid in the context of the VM Additions (because they are
supplied in binary-only form), but again, I don't use them.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Colin Barn » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:55:31

Call it what you want, but MS explicitly states what they support (willing
to address bugs). Bug reports about unsupported configurations simply get a
polite thank you at best.

You are correct in assuming that MS did not develop VPC to provide "correct"
hardware emulation in the sense I think you mean it. For example, the real
S3Trio video card that serves as the model for the emulated one supports
24bit color depth but the emulated card does not (by design). This
frequently impacts Linux distributions because many of them default to 24bit
color depth when installed and so display incorrectly in VPC. The user then
has to take additional steps in Linux to change the color depth.

Ben Armstrong blogged on the decisions behind what hardware devices the team
decided to emulate at
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

Finally, there is a website hosted by an MVP where users reported successes
and failures in running all sorts of operating systems under VPC 2004. See:
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ 't believe that there is one for VPC 2007.
The idea was that since MS did not comment on unsupported scenarios, the
users at least had a place to comment on issues. This website was
constructed and hosted by Jonathan Maltz out of his own pocket. Such is the
fervor of Windows enthusiasts.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Z3JhaGF » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:25:01

> Call it what you want, but MS explicitly states what they support

I call it an incomplete product with limited functionality. This bug makes
VPC unusable to me, and I will have to migrate to a competing product --
which I would prefer not to do, simply because that would require time and
effort.


Indeed, there are places where it is sensible to cut corners, but this sort
of issue should be unacceptable.


That's only a minor annoyance. Changing colour depths in X is relatively
easy, and I rarely run X on my Linux VM anyway.


Yes, I was once one of those, but I got the feeling that I wasn't able to
actually make a difference. When there's open-source software involved, I can
really contribute.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Colin Barn » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:37:13

> I call it an incomplete product with limited functionality.
That's because its your ox that's gored. VPC does not purport to be a
perfect copy of a physical pc. It is a virtualization product that allows
users to virtualize Windows. Whatever else virtualizes successfully is a
gift.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Steve Jai » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:10:55

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:25:01 -0800, graham



Is there a "complete" virtualization product? I doubt it, its not
worth the development costs to do it, as well as the potential
performance hits.

Are you sure the competing product doesn't have the same limitation?
They all have some.

There are plenty of bugs in Linux, specifically there are kernel bugs
that will cause VPC to crash...a bug in Linux...so does that make
Linux an incomplete product too?

It seems impressive to me that this incomplete product can run
hundreds of other distros of *nix without issue.


In your opinion. All virtualization software crashes under certain
circumstances. Because you're using the product in an unsupported
role isn't doesn't mean that the issue is unacceptable. Again, how
can hundreds of other OSes run without issue?

Unrecoverable processor errors are generally something that would
cause a physical system to crash or spontaneously reboot.

What are you doing that is causing the error?
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Z3JhaGF » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:28:01

> Is there a "complete" virtualization product? I doubt it

Likely not, but my point was that VPC2007 is *intentionally* incomplete, if
Microsoft is unwilling to accept bug reports concerning OSes that they do not
officially support.


I don't honestly know, but I would guess that, by now, lots of people have
run Linux 2.6.24 successfully inside of QEMU and VMware.


But the developers and distributors are generally willing to accept bug
reports, and fix the bugs.


Unless this breakage is caused by a Debian-specific kernel patch, then any
distro that ships Linux 2.6.24 will break similarly.


Granted, nothing is perfect.


The bug is a show-stopper for me.

There are likely many reasons why Microsoft does not officially support
Linux "in general". Politics aside, it is a moving target which they cannot
control, and there are many variations.

However, they must realize that many people want to run Linux and other OSes
that are not officially supported. If MS wants people to standardize on VPC,
they should strive to make it as universal as possible. To facilitate this,
they should accept bug reports concerning non-supported OSes, and make at
least some effort to resolve them.

I am about to drop VPC2007 because it is currently not working for me, and
from what I have been told today, it seems that MS is not at all interested
in resolving my problem.


Hundreds?

http://www.yqcomputer.com/

Sure, there are hundreds of entries in that list, but from VPC's point of
view, most Linux distros of similar vintage are very much the same.


No, it works fine on physical hardware.


Nothing extraordinary. I installed the latest kernel package and attempted
to boot it.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Colin Barn » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:48:47

Whether or not bug reports are relevant is the issue. If MS chooses not to
support Linux in VPC then bug reports are not relevant. Bug reports are
relevant when an error is detected when running a supported guest on a
supported host. Why should Ford pay for Warranty repairs on a Chevy?

MS makes no representation of the kind you are implying. You're simply in
denial that they have no responsibility in assisting you in what you are
trying to do.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Z3JhaGF » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 07:09:00

> If MS chooses not to support Linux in VPC then bug reports are

This isn't entirely true. As I suggested previously, MS might take interest
in improving their product in general, or expanding the list of "unofficially
supported" software to increase its popularity, appease the enthusiast
community, etc. You've told me that this is not the case, and I find this
disappointing, but not at all surprising.


That's not a valid comparison; I'm not asking Microsoft to fix Linux.


No, I fully understand that MS does not care. I'm saying that maybe they
should. I'm very tired of the "Microsoft only works with Microsoft" attitude.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Colin Barn » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 07:50:22

>MS might take interest in improving their product in general, or expanding

MS does. That's why they host the newsgroups and maintain the Knowledge
Base. That is as far as anyone can reasonably expect them to go.

btw, I don't know of any list of "unofficially supported" software. When MS
uses the term "supported" they mean you can get help from Microsoft Product
Support Services. "Supported" isn't used in the sense of "runs" or "works."
Perhaps there is a nuance in what MS means by "support" that you have not
considered.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Steve Jai » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:15:03

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:28:01 -0800, graham



Intentionally? I really doubt that. Who said MS is unwilling to
accept bug reports for unsupported OSes?


Microsoft does support Linux with Virtual Server and Windows
Virtualization.


They do, just not with any version of VPC at this time.


The current version of VPC isn't likely to see any major updates in
the near future.

If you truly have a bug, you should contact Microsoft Product Support
and open an incident with them which is the proper way to report a bug
to MS, at least that's my understanding. Or, if you have a
Technet/MSDN subscription, post in a managed newsgroup.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Tom Daco » Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:45:46


Bye. Be sure and write.

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by Z3JhaGF » Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:04:03

> Who said MS is unwilling to

That would have been Colin Barnhorst. He seemed quite certain on this point,
but if you or anyone else knows otherwise, please let me know.


I'd be willing to do that, if there's no cost associated with doing so.
 
 
 

Linux 2.6.24 causes "unrecoverable processor error"

Post by YXdpbGtpbn » Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:45:00


You need to specify a vga mode that isn't 24-bit to the kernel.

Try adding the following to your boot line.

vga=771