On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:43:22PM +, John Harrison wrote:
> On 13/02/2015 13:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:08:59PM +, John Harrison wrote:
> >>>@@ -1155,40 +1154,30 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer_parse(struct intel_engine_cs
> >>>*ring,
> >>> batch_
On 13/02/2015 13:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:08:59PM +, John Harrison wrote:
@@ -1155,40 +1154,30 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer_parse(struct intel_engine_cs *ring,
batch_start_offset,
batch_len,
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:08:59PM +, John Harrison wrote:
> >@@ -1155,40 +1154,30 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer_parse(struct intel_engine_cs
> >*ring,
> > batch_start_offset,
> > batch_len,
> > is_master);
> >-if (ret)
Hello,
Apparently, I've been volunteered to review these patches despite not
knowing too much about these areas of the driver...
On 14/01/2015 11:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
Currently, the command parser tries to create a secondary batch exactly
as large as the original, and vmap both. This is op
Currently, the command parser tries to create a secondary batch exactly
as large as the original, and vmap both. This is open to abuse by
userspace using extremely large batch objects, but only executing very
short batches. For example, this would be if userspace were to implement
a command submiss
