In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/i915/ttm: fix CCS handling Crucible + recent Mesa seems to sometimes hit: GEM_BUG_ON(num_ccs_blks > NUM_CCS_BLKS_PER_XFER) And it looks like we can also trigger this with gem_lmem_swapping, if we modify the test to use slightly larger object sizes. Looking closer it looks like we have the following issues in migrate_copy(): - We are using plain integer in various places, which we can easily overflow with a large object. - We pass the entire object size (when the src is lmem) into emit_pte() and then try to copy it, which doesn't work, since we only have a few fixed sized windows in which to map the pages and perform the copy. With an object > 8M we therefore aren't properly copying the pages. And then with an object > 64M we trigger the GEM_BUG_ON(num_ccs_blks > NUM_CCS_BLKS_PER_XFER). So it looks like our copy handling for any object > 8M (which is our CHUNK_SZ) is currently broken on DG2. Testcase: igt@gem_lme...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/i915/ttm: fix CCS handling Crucible + recent Mesa seems to sometimes hit: GEM_BUG_ON(num_ccs_blks > NUM_CCS_BLKS_PER_XFER) And it looks like we can also trigger this with gem_lmem_swapping, if we modify the test to use slightly larger object sizes. Looking closer it looks like we have the following issues in migrate_copy(): - We are using plain integer in various places, which we can easily overflow with a large object. - We pass the entire object size (when the src is lmem) into emit_pte() and then try to copy it, which doesn't work, since we only have a few fixed sized windows in which to map the pages and perform the copy. With an object > 8M we therefore aren't properly copying the pages. And then with an object > 64M we trigger the GEM_BUG_ON(num_ccs_blks > NUM_CCS_BLKS_PER_XFER). So it looks like our copy handling for any object > 8M (which is our CHUNK_SZ) is currently broken on DG2. Testcase: igt@gem_lme...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/i915/ttm: fix CCS handling Crucible + recent Mesa seems to sometimes hit: GEM_BUG_ON(num_ccs_blks > NUM_CCS_BLKS_PER_XFER) And it looks like we can also trigger this with gem_lmem_swapping, if we modify the test to use slightly larger object sizes. Looking closer it looks like we have the following issues in migrate_copy(): - We are using plain integer in various places, which we can easily overflow with a large object. - We pass the entire object size (when the src is lmem) into emit_pte() and then try to copy it, which doesn't work, since we only have a few fixed sized windows in which to map the pages and perform the copy. With an object > 8M we therefore aren't properly copying the pages. And then with an object > 64M we trigger the GEM_BUG_ON(num_ccs_blks > NUM_CCS_BLKS_PER_XFER). So it looks like our copy handling for any object > 8M (which is our CHUNK_SZ) is currently bro

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: d ...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/i915/ttm: fix CCS handling Crucible + recent Mesa seems to sometimes hit: GEM_BUG_ON(num_ccs_blks > NUM_CCS_BLKS_PER_XFER) And it looks like we can also trigger this with gem_lmem_swapping, if we modify the test to use slightly larger object sizes. Looking closer it looks like we have the following issues in migrate_copy(): - We are using plain integer in various places, which we can easily overflow with a large object. - We pass the entire object size (when the src is lmem) into emit_pte() and then try to copy it, which doesn't work, since we only have a few fixed sized windows in which to map the pages and perform the copy. With an object > 8M we therefore aren't properly copying the pages. And then with an object > 64M we trigger the GEM_BUG_ON(num_ccs_blks > NUM_CCS_BLKS_PER_XFER). So it looks like our copy handling for any object > 8M (which is our CHUNK_SZ) is currently ...

Security update for the Linux Kernel