linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Work around Intel SNB GTT bug with some physical pages.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 8 May 2012 07:53:36 +0100
From:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To:	Stéphane Marchesin <marcheu@...omium.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keithp@...thp.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, seanpaul@...omium.org,
	olofj@...omium.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Work around Intel SNB GTT bug with some physical pages.

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Stéphane Marchesin
<marcheu@...omium.org> wrote:
> While investing some Sandy Bridge rendering corruption, I found out
> that all physical memory pages below 1MiB were returning garbage when
> read through the GTT. This has been causing graphics corruption (when
> it's used for textures, render targets and pixmaps) and GPU hangups
> (when it's used for GPU batch buffers).
>
> I talked with some people at Intel and they confirmed my findings,
> and said that a couple of other random pages were also affected.
>
> We could fix this problem by adding an e820 region preventing the
> memory below 1 MiB to be used, but that prevents at least my machine
> from booting. One could think that we should be able to fix it in
> i915, but since the allocation is done by the backing shmem this is
> not possible.
>
> In the end, I came up with the ugly workaround of just leaking the
> offending pages in shmem.c. I do realize it's truly ugly, but I'm
> looking for a fix to the existing code, and am wondering if people on
> this list have a better idea, short of rewriting i915_gem.c to
> allocate its own pages directly.

Ouch, can Intel get some details on why these pages are "special" and
if they are special across chipsets, Ironlake? Ivybridge?

Like I can handle the < 1MB but the other selected pages look pretty
random or misc, (2005, 2011, 2013? years?, 40004000, some shout out to
the 4004?

Dave.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/