[HN Gopher] DirectX 12 applications no longer working on 4th gen...
___________________________________________________________________
DirectX 12 applications no longer working on 4th gen Intel
processor graphics
Author : pantalaimon
Score : 121 points
Date : 2021-11-06 20:29 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.intel.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.intel.com)
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| This is not good Intel. Are you going to deprecate Windows next?
| Linux?
| amiga-workbench wrote:
| The Intel graphics drivers for Linux are open source. If they
| pull a blinder like that, it can be undone.
| userbinator wrote:
| _escalation of privilege_
|
| IMHO that's on the very low end of vulnerabilities to be
| concerned about, but the paranoia-kings would rather disable an
| entire feature because of it. A sad reflection of what the
| software/security industry has become. (At the very high end is
| automatic remote code execution, something which I really hope a
| GPU driver would never have, but then again, I've been surprised
| too many times already... )
| monocasa wrote:
| Pretty much every meaningful exploit chain includes privilege
| escalation.
| [deleted]
| yuliyp wrote:
| When you can have web content interact with graphics APIs,
| escalation of privilege is a huge deal.
| thrower123 wrote:
| Everything about that sentence is awful. Let's just not do
| any of that.
| monocasa wrote:
| Oof. I'd love to know why.
|
| If I had to guess it's related to how
| DirectX12/Vulkan/Metal/Mantle are all about the basic idea that
| if you have a full MMU on the GPU, you can expose a more direct,
| console like API. The idea being that at worst you can only crash
| your own process's GPU context and that was always allowed. Maybe
| Intel found a hole in their MMU's implementation that lets you
| break out from the GPU side? I feel like it would have to be some
| hardware issue that fundamentally break's DX12's value add if
| patched to decide to just wholesale remove the feature.
| Jasper_ wrote:
| It's worth noting that Haswell only ever supported Tier1
| resource binding on DX12, so none of the new bindless stuff
| would even be to blame. I suspect this won't affect any
| projects too harshly, because anything DX12 exclusive probably
| requires at least Tier2 resource binding support. But I'm
| guessing something in the resource binding system is to
| blame...
| smoldesu wrote:
| I was initially a little surprised, as someone running a trusty
| Haswell CPU, but then I remembered that DXVK handles all this for
| me and I probably won't be affected. Not sure if this is a win or
| a vulnerability, but I'll take it!
| breakingcups wrote:
| Would this be grounds to return the product for a refund outside
| of the normal return window?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| DirectX 12 is Windows 10 exclusive and that came out 1-2 years
| after 4th gen, so this would not be a feature Intel was
| advertising at the time.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Basically the way Intel got to fix a security vulnerability was
| to disable DirectX 12 support, great move. /s
| Scharkenberg wrote:
| Yeah, it's a questionable move. However, those who care more
| about DX12 on Haswell iGPUs than about the risk coming from the
| patched vulnerability have the option of staying on the
| previous driver, at least.
|
| The way I see it is that the writing has been on the wall for
| pre-Skylake iGPUs ever since Intel refused to make DCH drivers
| for them. Ultimately, even the (U)HD series seems to be a
| stopgap that is lasting longer than Intel wishes it did.
| nynx wrote:
| Lmao. Intel just can't catch a break.
| distantsounds wrote:
| MS just gave everyone with a 4th gen proc another reason to
| open their wallets for something newer.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Intel has been a spoiler in the GFX market for the longest
| time.
|
| Every laptop I've had that has discrete GFX has had recurring
| bugs with both Firefox and Chrome because of the two-GPU
| situation. I would have the hardest time documenting what was
| going on, they'd fix the bug, then in the next major release it
| would break again.
| vmception wrote:
| there's a joke about gamers who avoid macs in here somewhere
| bcwarner wrote:
| That's an interesting way to resolve an exploit like that, what
| would have necessitated disabling DirectX 12 in its entirety as
| opposed to other methods?
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| This is a dumb question but how far "back" (regressed) would we
| have to go to get "open secure" hardware?
|
| ie we decide that having open sourced hardware designs and some
| way to verify the silicon matches tha hardware is the way to go.
|
| This is not just the CPU but all the chips on a motherboard, GPU
| included?
|
| IIRC Russia still fabs 286s for its military because they have
| verified the design and don't have to worry the NSA has added a
| few extra circuits.
|
| I would guess we would could go a couple of generations back
| before the reduction in power more than was compensated for by
| the presumed extra peace of mind?
| ant6n wrote:
| > Russia still fabs 286s for its military
|
| You'd think they could at least find some Arm 32-bit design. A
| 286 is just so cumbersome and slow...
| Kye wrote:
| That's probably for maintaining older machines. I doubt it's
| the bleeding edge of verified Russian CPU clones.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| RISC-V and MIPS are the only semi-modern architectures I know
| of that can be implemented with 100% open hardware down to the
| schematics of every single component on the mainboard/CPU/etc.
|
| And the main problem with those is performance. Even the
| fastest RISC-V board currently available (which is also
| proprietary) is still twice as slow as a Raspberry Pi 3.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Some movement on the POWER front in the last ~two years as
| well but nothing concrete there. Though the stuff is very
| open, just not the fancy cores themselves.
| [deleted]
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Could not be bothered to do a proper fix - Windows 11 and Alder
| Lake is the new thing.
|
| I am still miffed about Skylake being out of support for Windows
| 11.
| jquery wrote:
| Same. I was planning on riding my build a while longer yet, but
| I was unwilling to be left behind, so I'm upgrading my PC soon.
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| Your actions repeated a few million times = Thanks Microsoft,
| for your contribution to e-waste and to a 1.5 degree warmer
| world arriving earlier than 2040.
|
| Can't wait for Windows 10 to be EOL'ed, for this problem to
| get worse. "Switch to Linux" they say, but hah, the corporate
| bean counters will say retraining is more expensive, just buy
| those new PCs, that 1.5 degree problem, that's not our issue!
| smarx007 wrote:
| Most of the corporate IT leases employee hardware already
| and has 3-5 year laptop refresh cycles accounted for. I
| don't see how Windows 11 will affect anything in the big
| scheme of things for large enterprise IT procurement.
|
| But as far as home users are concerned, I fully agree with
| you.
| IntelMiner wrote:
| As I understand it, Windows 11's CPU limits are designed for
| CPU's that have specific hardware mtigiation for Spectre and
| Meltdown
|
| Given that we're still seeing new variants of those today it
| doesn't feel like the most crushing requirement
|
| Plus there's frankly nothing "compelling" about Windows 11 yet.
| All the promised features like SSD <--> GPU data transfers
| (mimicing the Xbox One and PS5) are just "things we're going to
| add" at some indeterminate date
|
| Microsoft has by their own clock until 2025 to wow people over
| to Windows 11, and they've not even shown up to the race
| NullPrefix wrote:
| They finally fully mitigated Spectre and Meltdown?
| nightski wrote:
| This doesn't impact many people, but WiFi 6e support on the
| 6Ghz band is currently only in Win 11 (won't work on Win 10,
| I've tried). Otherwise I pretty much agree with you, nothing
| that compelling.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| There is no technical reason a 6E driver for Win10 cannot
| be written by someone.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| If that's a selling point of Win11, I bet they refuse to
| sign the driver for Win10.
| shaicoleman wrote:
| > As I understand it, Windows 11's CPU limits are designed
| for CPU's that have specific hardware mtigiation for Spectre
| and Meltdown
|
| "To run Windows 11, CPUs need to have the hardware
| virtualisation features to enable virtual secure mode for
| Virtualisation-Based Security and the Hypervisor-Protected
| Code Integrity that underlies a range of protections that
| Microsoft has been building since Windows 8, like Application
| Guard, Control Flow Guard, Credential Guard, Device Guard and
| System Guard. Now they'll be on by default for all PCs, not
| just specially selected devices."
|
| https://www.techrepublic.com/article/windows-11-understandin.
| ..
| ikiris wrote:
| there wasn't really anything compelling past windows 7 except
| "continues to receive drivers and security updates"
| tehbeard wrote:
| Didn't DirectStorage get it's Win11 exclusivity removed? and
| it'll be on Win10 as well?
| Causality1 wrote:
| _I am still miffed about Skylake being out of support for
| Windows 11._
|
| Is there a particular feature you find desirable enough to make
| up for the hot garbage that is the rest of Windows 11?
| dundarious wrote:
| But AVX512 has been killed on Alder Lake also -- not that I was
| too excited about it, but it's certainly sapping my interest in
| Intel in the short and medium term. All because only P cores
| can execute AVX512 and E cores will fault on those
| instructions.
|
| Can't let programs using them affinitize themselves to P cores
| only, oh no. Definitely need to kill the entire instruction set
| extension, or only allow it if BIOS writers figure out they can
| use unpublished methods to enable it but only if they disable E
| cores at boot. /s
|
| (I may be wrong on some details above, I haven't been keeping
| the closest of eyes on the issues.)
| ranger_danger wrote:
| My understanding is that AVX512 is not all that it's cracked
| up to be anyway, and that it also clocks the CPU _down_ while
| it is executing those instructions. So my understanding is
| that a program (even if not a particularly heavy one) that
| constantly executed AVX512 instructions could cause a
| noticeable drop in performance to the entire system.
| dundarious wrote:
| Agreed, wasn't too excited about it as a prospect because
| of reports like that, but now it'll be even harder to test
| for myself, and if it turns out to have _some_ use case,
| it's another generation before consumer grade stuff can
| benefit from it. Completely off my radar now.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> I am still miffed about Skylake being out of support for
| Windows 11.
|
| You can always run the latest versions of Linux.
| NavinF wrote:
| Ah yes, because Linux is known for its perfect hardware
| support and DirectX support.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28490753
|
| (Ok to be fair I've never had issues with an iGPU on Linux.
| Probably because none of the package maintainers can afford a
| discrete GPU :P)
| samus wrote:
| DirectX 12 support is getting better with Proton and VKD3D.
| It's not universal yet, but it works better than I ever
| expected such efforts to go. Today, I was able to play a
| game again than I have pretty much given up on playing on
| Linux. Granted, it probably does not use DirectX 12...
| [deleted]
| theknocker wrote:
| Microsoft and intel should have to mail me a new pc for free.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| This doesn't affect me, so I won't comment on the decision or its
| merits/alternatives. But I'm astonished that in the same article:
|
| - they say that they removed DirectX 12 support to address a
| security vulnerability
|
| - they say you can restore DirectX 12 support with the older,
| vulnerable firmware
|
| ... and don't warn that this implies reintroducing the
| vulnerability. I mean, sure, the implication is clear if you're
| reading top to bottom to understand the reason for the change.
| But it's certainly not going to be clear to people who
| understandably may find this looking for a "fix", where skipping
| to the solution is a common pattern.
|
| That seems exceedingly irresponsible to me. Security fixes are
| for your users, not for your own checklist to cover your ass.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-06 23:00 UTC)