linux-kernel - Re: [radeon agp] add blacklist for thinkpad T40p

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:04:40 +0000
From:	Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
To:	Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Trivial patch monkey <trivial@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Maling list - DRI developers 
	<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	"Deucher, Alexander" <alexander.deucher@....com>,
	Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: [radeon agp] add blacklist for thinkpad T40p

On 2 December 2015 at 16:33, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 30 November 2015 at 19:47, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thinkpad T40p needs agpmode 1.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
>>>
>>> Seems odd that this wouldn't have been found earlier given how popular
>>> thinkpads are.  Applied.  Thanks,
>>>
>> Wondering if it wouldn't be better to apply these restrictions within
>> the AGP driver. I have a vague recollection that (at least?) some of
>> these are chipset limitations/bugs ?
>
> I think it's probably better in the GPU drivers.  AGP was always
> problematic.  There are a number of quirks that were necessary for
> some users but not others on the same hardware.  Additionally, the
> combination of vendors or even driver versions/behaviors were
> problematic.  E.g., with UMS, the drivers didn't use much gart since
> there was just a single static allocation.  Once we switched to KMS,
> lots of new bugs surfaced.  Chipset A plus GPU vendor B worked fined,
> but chipset A with GPU vendor C was problematic.
>
Looking at how many cases with identical vendor/device (yet differing
sub vendor/device) are there, plus some of these also available in
nouveau I'm wondering if it's truly a case of things "working" for
some as opposed to different test(ing procedure) being applied. That
assumption comes along nicely with how 'delayed' this report is.

That said I'm not pushing on anything, just pointing out the pattern I see.

Emil
--
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/