On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:21:03 +0200, Chris Wilson
<ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-08-16 11:54:58)
+static inline bool __check_layout(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u32
wopcm_size,
+ u32 guc_wopcm_base, u32
guc_wopcm_size,
+ u32 guc_fw_size, u32 huc_fw_size)
+{
+ const u32 ctx_rsvd = context_reserved_size(i915);
+ u32 size;
+
+ size = wopcm_size - ctx_rsvd;
I didn't spot the paranoia for
if (ctx_rsvd > wopcm_size)
return false;
Is that built in earlier? Even so, probably still wise to include it here
as well to fit in with the overflow checks.
was added to intel_wopcm_init() that calls this function, look for:
+ GEM_BUG_ON(ctx_rsvd + WOPCM_RESERVED_SIZE >= wopcm->size);
+ if (unlikely(range_overflows(guc_wopcm_base, guc_wopcm_size,
size))) {
+ dev_err(i915->drm.dev,
+ "WOPCM: invalid GuC region layout: %uK + %uK >
%uK\n",
+ guc_wopcm_base / SZ_1K, guc_wopcm_size / SZ_1K,
+ size / SZ_1K);
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ size = guc_fw_size + GUC_WOPCM_RESERVED +
GUC_WOPCM_STACK_RESERVED;
+ if (unlikely(guc_wopcm_size < size)) {
+ dev_err(i915->drm.dev, "WOPCM: no space for %s: %uK <
%uK\n",
+ intel_uc_fw_type_repr(INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_GUC),
+ guc_wopcm_size / SZ_1K, size / SZ_1K);
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ size = huc_fw_size + WOPCM_RESERVED_SIZE;
+ if (unlikely(guc_wopcm_base < size)) {
+ dev_err(i915->drm.dev, "WOPCM: no space for %s: %uK <
%uK\n",
+ intel_uc_fw_type_repr(INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_HUC),
+ guc_wopcm_base / SZ_1K, size / SZ_1K);
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ return check_hw_restrictions(i915, guc_wopcm_base,
guc_wopcm_size,
+ huc_fw_size);
}
Looks safely paranoid to me,
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
