vboxguest issue with 3.0.10

[maierkomor]

Hi,

I have just installed VirtualBox 3.0.10 on a Windows XP host with an OpenSolaris client. The following error message keeps appearing, which did not come up with earlier versions:

vboxguest: NOTICE: rtR0MemObjNativeLockUser: as_pagelock failed rc=13

A small dtrace script shows that the return code for as_pagelock is 13 at the following stack trace:
as_pagelock:return
libc.so.1`ioctl+0x15
VBoxService`VbglR3GuestPropWriteValue+0x80
VBoxService`VbglR3GuestPropWriteValueV+0x43
VBoxService`_Z21VBoxServiceWritePropFjPKcS0_z+0x30
VBoxService`_Z23VBoxServiceVMInfoWorkerPVb+0x4fc
VBoxService`_Z17VBoxServiceThreadP11RTTHREADINTPv+0x21
VBoxService`rtThreadMain+0x40
VBoxService`_Z18rtThreadNativeMainPv+0x72
libc.so.1`_thrp_setup+0x9b
libc.so.1`_lwp_start

Can somebody file a bug for this?

- Thomas

[SSCBrian]

My Solaris 10U8 guest (Vista x64 host) also spews a page or 2 of that error during booting since the 3.0.10 update. Other than all the errors displayed, it seems to work just fine.

[rasta]

Same for me on my Solaris 10 u8 64-bit guest (WinXP 32-bit host) since 3.0.10 update with guest additions installed. I get many of these on guest boot:

NOTICE: rtROMem0bjNativeLockUser: as_pagelock failed rc=13

As for SSCBrian, the guest otherwise acts fine.

[SSCBrian]

I did think of one other little bugaboo after I originally posted. The unrequested key repeat issue from the very early versions of 3.0.x is back, but in a very mild form (has only happened a couple times in a couple hours of usage). Appeared to have been fixed in 3.0.8, but somehow is back now in 3.0.10.

[ae3265]

I'm seeing it with Solaris U7 as well when I upgrade the guest additions package. If I leave the additions at the 3.0.8 version, I do not see this.

[rasta]

Same for me, as3265.

[irian]

I have the same problem. VirtualBox 3.0.10 running on Windows XP. Guest OS: Solaris 10, 32bit. The problem appeared after installing the Guest Addtions.

bash-3.00# cat /etc/release
Solaris 10 10/09 s10x_u8wos_08a X86
Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 16 September 2009
bash-3.00# uname -a
SunOS unknown 5.10 Generic_141445-09 i86pc i386 i86pc
bash-3.00# tail /var/adm/messages
...
Nov 11 00:31:43 unknown vboxguest: [ID 752672 kern.notice] NOTICE: rtR0MemObjNativeLockUser: as_pagelock failed rc=13
Nov 11 00:37:15 unknown last message repeated 102 times
Nov 11 00:37:25 unknown vboxguest: [ID 752672 kern.notice] NOTICE: rtR0MemObjNativeLockUser: as_pagelock failed rc=13
Nov 11 00:43:55 unknown last message repeated 119 times
Nov 11 00:44:05 unknown vboxguest: [ID 752672 kern.notice] NOTICE: rtR0MemObjNativeLockUser: as_pagelock failed rc=13

[gbrunett]

I am seeing the exact same problem on a Mac OS X (10.6.2) host running VirtualBox 3.0.10 and OpenSolaris b126 as its guest.

Glenn

[Ramshankar]

This has been fixed as part of 3.1 beta and in 3.0.x. Thanks for reporting.

[Toaster]

I have the same error too, running Opensolaris on XP :

Code: Select all

root@osol-jeos:~# cat /etc/release
                         OpenSolaris 2009.06 snv_111b X86
           Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
                        Use is subject to license terms.
                              Assembled 07 May 2009

Code: Select all

Nov 16 10:50:25 osol-jeos vboxguest: [ID 752672 kern.notice] NOTICE: rtR0MemObjNativeLockUser: as_pagelock failed rc=13

[SSCBrian]

This has been fixed as part of 3.1 beta and in 3.0.x. Thanks for reporting.

Recommend that people wait for 3.1 stable. The error message really doesn't seem to hurt anything, but 3.1beta did wreak havoc on my VMs. I'll be reinstalling 3.0.10 and my Solaris VM when I get a chance...

Just don't want people to rush off and install the beta and get into new problems while trying to avoid something that seems to be harmless!

[sandervl]

This has been fixed as part of 3.1 beta and in 3.0.x. Thanks for reporting.

Recommend that people wait for 3.1 stable. The error message really doesn't seem to hurt anything, but 3.1beta did wreak havoc on my VMs. I'll be reinstalling 3.0.10 and my Solaris VM when I get a chance...

Just don't want people to rush off and install the beta and get into new problems while trying to avoid something that seems to be harmless!

So why not report this in the beta forum? I haven't seen anybody else reporting this so if you don't mention it, it's not likely to get fixed.

[SSCBrian]

This has been fixed as part of 3.1 beta and in 3.0.x. Thanks for reporting.

Recommend that people wait for 3.1 stable. The error message really doesn't seem to hurt anything, but 3.1beta did wreak havoc on my VMs. I'll be reinstalling 3.0.10 and my Solaris VM when I get a chance...

Just don't want people to rush off and install the beta and get into new problems while trying to avoid something that seems to be harmless!

So why not report this in the beta forum? I haven't seen anybody else reporting this so if you don't mention it, it's not likely to get fixed.

I could do that. Except it might be too late now since I can't even remember what the exact symptoms were. Something to do with my VM names being partially mangled and the wrong virtual drive assigned to each one. It'd look fine on VBox start, but try to use a VM or edit settings resulted in catastrophic failures.

I just figured it was one of those quirky beta issues that you guys knew about. Wasn't too excited about it since I knew I was taking a risk installing beta software. Just didn't want anyone over here that should be using the release version getting all excited about the beta being out and jumping in when they shouldn't.

[sandervl]

I could do that. Except it might be too late now since I can't even remember what the exact symptoms were. Something to do with my VM names being partially mangled and the wrong virtual drive assigned to each one. It'd look fine on VBox start, but try to use a VM or edit settings resulted in catastrophic failures.

I just figured it was one of those quirky beta issues that you guys knew about. Wasn't too excited about it since I knew I was taking a risk installing beta software. Just didn't want anyone over here that should be using the release version getting all excited about the beta being out and jumping in when they shouldn't.

If you have time, could you try out beta 2 (due out tomorrow probably) and report back? Sounds rather bad and you're the first one to report such horrible failures. Thanks!

[SSCBrian]

I could do that. Except it might be too late now since I can't even remember what the exact symptoms were. Something to do with my VM names being partially mangled and the wrong virtual drive assigned to each one. It'd look fine on VBox start, but try to use a VM or edit settings resulted in catastrophic failures.

I just figured it was one of those quirky beta issues that you guys knew about. Wasn't too excited about it since I knew I was taking a risk installing beta software. Just didn't want anyone over here that should be using the release version getting all excited about the beta being out and jumping in when they shouldn't.

If you have time, could you try out beta 2 (due out tomorrow probably) and report back? Sounds rather bad and you're the first one to report such horrible failures. Thanks!

Will do.

I had several snapshots in both my VMs, if others aren't seeing the issue, that's what I'd suspect. I'll see what I can do with Beta 2 once it's out!