On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:46:37PM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:15:36AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > - Secure batch dispatch is still fubar. > > I'm not sure that this will still impact us once we implement the batch copy > step. I was only using the secure dispatch stuff because it was a convenient > way to get the batch into GGTT. But with the copy step, we could just have > separate code to do that. The problem isn't copying or allocating the bo, the issue is running it with a) the hw checker disabled b) not mapped into any ppgtt so hidden from all (unchecked) access and c) otherwise working like a normal batch. For that we need to employ the secure batch dispatch code in the execbuf code. Atm b) is broken for aliasing ppgtt and c) is broken for full ppgtt. So a bit of blockers for us. But at least broken b) with aliasing ppgtt is kinda a regression, which means I'll get around to it soonish (before 3.15-rc1 at least). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
