Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "Centos 6.7 on Tyan Tiger MPX, Graphics and eArrayDirector"
2016 Feb 03
2
Intel MPX support (instrumentation pass similar to gcc's Pointer Checker)
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii <
Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote:
> I continue playing with Intel MPX and its support in modern compilers.
> All experiments were done on the Alienware (Dell) 15 R2, Ubuntu 15.10
> (linux 4.2.0), gcc version is 5.2.1, icc version 2016.1.150. The
> benchmark suite is PARSEC 3.0, all versions with 1 thread and default
2016 Jan 28
2
Intel MPX support (instrumentation pass similar to gcc's Pointer Checker)
Hello,
As far as I know, there is no MPX pass in LLVM (though the x86-64
backend already declares MPX registers and instructions). I wonder if
anyone is currently working on the LLVM pass for MPX instrumentation,
similar to Pointer Checker in gcc. If yes, could anyone elaborate on
the status and accessability to other researchers? And if any help is
needed?
Prof. Santosh Nagarakatte, the author
2016 Feb 04
2
Intel MPX support (instrumentation pass similar to gcc's Pointer Checker)
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii <
Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote:
> >> Recently I played with MPX support on Intel C/C++ Compiler (icc). This
> >> implementation looks *much* better, with the following example
> >> overheads: 1.2X on "raytrace", 1.25X on "bodytrack", 1.08X on
> >> "streamcluster".
2013 Dec 02
0
[PATCH v4 3/7] X86: MPX IA32_BNDCFGS msr handle
From 291adaf4ad6174c5641a7239c1801373e92e9975 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:26:06 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v4 3/7] X86: MPX IA32_BNDCFGS msr handle
When MPX supported, a new guest-state field for IA32_BNDCFGS
is added to the VMCS. In addition, two new controls are added:
- a VM-exit control called "clear BNDCFGS"
- a
2016 Feb 09
2
Intel MPX support (instrumentation pass similar to gcc's Pointer Checker)
Dmitrii, all,
Please note, that GCC 5.3 had a significant update to the MPX code quality
- please, use this version as reference.
Regards,
Sergos
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb
2017 Feb 18
2
[RFC] Using Intel MPX to harden SafeStack
On 2/7/2017 20:02, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> ...
>
> My understanding is that BNDCU is the cheapest possible instruction,
> just like XOR or ADD,
> so the overhead should be relatively small.
> Still my guesstimate would be >= 5% since stores are very numerous.
> And such overhead will be on top of whatever overhead SafeStack has.
> Do you have any measurements to
2016 Jan 28
2
Intel MPX support (instrumentation pass similar to gcc's Pointer Checker)
> First, is MPX hardware available now? I wouldn't mind getting my hands on
> one.
It is available at least in the mobile versions of the recent Intel
Skylake CPUs. I am currently playing with Alienware 15 R2 with the
following CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6820HK. Interestingly, my
preliminary experiments indicate that adding MPX bounds checking via
Pointer Checker in gcc is usually
2016 Jan 28
3
Intel MPX support (instrumentation pass similar to gcc's Pointer Checker)
I've recently played with the GCC implementation of pointer checker on a
real hardware,
my recent impressions are here:
https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerIntelMemoryProtectionExtensions
(there is also some old pre-hardware content).
In short, I totally agree with what David says above: MPX is a disaster.
(Usual disclaimer: my opinion here is too biased)
I am glad
2017 Feb 17
6
Intel MPX support (instrumentation pass similar to gcc's Pointer Checker)
Hello,
even though the study of Intel MPX took much longer than expected, we
have finally finished it. Currently, it is published in two formats:
* as a technical report: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00719
* and as a webpage: https://intel-mpx.github.io/
This work contains evaluation of MPX from perspectives of performance
(Phoenix, PARSEC, and SPEC benchmark suites), security (RIPE and found
2017 Feb 08
4
[RFC] Using Intel MPX to harden SafeStack
Hi,
I previously posted about using 32-bit X86 segmentation to harden SafeStack: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/100346.html That involves lowering the limits of the DS and ES segments that are used for ordinary data accesses while leaving the limit for SS, the stack segment, set to its maximum value. The safe stacks were clustered above the limits of DS and ES. Thus, by
2003 Dec 30
3
A Head Check
Hello,
I have been retained by a Building Management Company to install a
combined Voice/Data solution for a Tennated Office Space. This space will
rent offices, with telephone and internet service to inviduals or small
groups of individuals. As fate would have it, the service will be
provided in a building where we have a major Pop, with a DS-3 worth of
ISDN PRI circuits, 345 megs of
2018 Jun 30
2
Using BuildMI to insert Intel MPX instruction BNDCU failed
Hello everyone, I'm a newbie of llvm. I'm trying to insert Intel MPX
instruction BNDCU with BuildMI. I add my machinefunctionpass
at addPreEmitPass2.
Here is the code of insertion:
BuildMI(MBB, MI, DL, TII->get(X86::BNDCU64rr)).addReg(X86::BND2,
RegState::Define).addReg(X86::R10);
And here is to stack track when I compiler program with modified llc:
2013 Sep 10
3
[LLVMdev] Intel Memory Protection Extensions (and types question)
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk
> wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:28, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM, David Chisnall <
> David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:13, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at
2006 Jan 04
4
Centos locking up system with mptscsih driver error
I have a Tyan Tiger S2466 MPX motherboard with Dual Atlon MP 2800+ CPUs
and 1GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM. For disk drive I have an LSI53C1030 and 4
Seagate ST336607LWs in a software raid 5 configuration. I installed
Centos 4.1 and everything was fine running kernel-smp-2.6.9-11.EL.
However when I upated to Centos 4.2 I have run into problems. Namely
after a finite amount of disk traffic the system
2005 Aug 28
1
Onboard RAID Tyan Transport GT24 (Thunder K8SRE s2891)
I've been checking out this and like the looks of it.
http://www.tyan.com/products/html/gt24b2891.html
I was told the onboard SATA RAID controller can only
be used by windows. However, others have told me that
there is no problem using it with linux.
Anyone used the Tyan Transport GT24 (TYAN Thunder
K8SRE s2891 motherboard)? Good choice for a CentOS
server?
Thanks,
Josh
2013 Sep 10
0
[LLVMdev] Intel Memory Protection Extensions (and types question)
On 10 Sep 2013, at 12:13, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> Well, ok, you can treat this as a 192-bit fat pointer, but AFAICT this is not the real intention of the MPX developers
> since a fat pointer will break all ABIs, and MPX tries to preserve them.
MPX is an implementation of the HardBound concept from UPenn, where this was a design goal (see also their 'low-fat
2005 May 13
1
Tyan Transport GX28 with TDM400
I want to know if I buy a Tyan Transport GX28 (B2881) will it work
with a TDM400 card? As the expansion slots are only (2) 64-bit
133/100MHz PCI-X. I never tried PCI 2.2 compliant card in a PCI-X
slot so I don't know if it can even fit in the slot and if it does
will it be seen?
Thanks
Martin Roy
2010 Jan 04
2
Centos 5.4 and TYAN s4985 motherboard....
Was wondering if anyone has any luck with the Tyan s4985 motherboard, I had
loaded up the latest 5.4 release and in installed most everything that I
wanted but when I loaded it up, as in processor wise it would lock up.
Funny thing I could still ssh to it but not do a su - or anything from the
console. I think it is kernel related and tried the previous kernel but it
still exhibited the same
2013 Sep 10
0
[LLVMdev] Intel Memory Protection Extensions (and types question)
On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:28, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:13, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
> > How did you come with 320 bits?
> > 320=64*4+64, which is the size of the metadata table entry plus
2005 Dec 01
2
Tyan S2891 and CentOS
I am trying to install CentOS to a server that has a Tyan S2891
motherboard, 2 Opteron 875 Dual Cores and 2GB of RAM.
I have been able trying to install over a network but the tg3 driver will
not load. I then installed from a DVD and on rebooting after the
installation I cannot get the network drivers to load and the RAID
controller in the PCI slot is not available.
It seems that when I do an