Dear,
My names are Barrister Doswell Coakley,I am contacting you for a partnership in business venture to invest on lucrative business in your country,I want to partner with you for this investment purpose.
I am the legal trustee to late Mr.Paul Louis Halley,who died along with his wife in a plane crash in the year 2003,after the death of my client his estates and funds that where known by member of his family where shared according to his will,but there is a certain amount of funds that my late client deposited with a finance firm in the U.S before his death,which only my client and me are aware of,the only family member that also knows about this funds is the wife of my late client,who died along with my client in the plane crash.
Just last week,the finance firm contacted me as his attorney to provide the next of kin to my late client to claim the funds my late client deposited with the finance firm,according to the finance firm the funds has over stayed their security vault,and if the next of kin of my late client do not make an application for claim for the funds in their custody it will be declared as unclaimed funds by the United States Government and will be use for charity purpose for offernage homes,which does not go down well with me,that was why I decide to search for someone who I can present as the next of kin to this funds,with supporting legal documentation,all I need from you is your hundred percent sincerity and trust.Please note that I am an attorney,and everything will be done legally,so there is nothing absolutely for you to be worried or skeptic about.
I got your contact information through the U.S public records on the internet while searching for someone who can partner with me to lay claims to this funds as the next of kin to my late client.Bellow is a link you can view to be more inform about my late client.
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/4537663.stm
Prior to my explaining further, I must first make an apology for this unsolicited mail to you. I am conscious that this is certainly not a predictable way of approach to foster a relationship of trust but because of the circumstances and urgency surrounding this claim,that is why I am contacting you through this medium.
Before the catastrophe,my late client deposited the sum of $25million(Twenty Five Million U.S Dollars) with the finance firm in the U.S. As the attorney to late Paul Louis Halley, the security/Finance firm in U.S has contacted me and mandating me to present a member of his family (heir/inheritor) to make Claims or the vault will be confiscated by the United States Government as unclaimed funds.
I have worked out all modalities to complete the operation effectively. Once the funds are released to you, we shall divide the funds in the ratio of 40% for you, 60% for me as our benefit.
Please note that there is nothing absolutely to be worried and skeptic about,as I am the only person that knows the existence of this funds,and it is only me that the Finance/Security firms recognize as the legal trustee to my late client.
Kindly indicate your responses to this mail via, my private email address(doswellcoakley181(a)gmail.com)only,as I do not want this transaction discuss on telephone here in the U.S for confidentiality.
Kind Regards,
Doswell Coakley.(ESQ.)
A commit (9816ef6ecbc1) was made to correct a use after free condition
in lpfc_rq_buf_free(). Unfortunately, a subsequent patch cut on a tree
without the fix inadvertantly reverted the fix.
Put the fix back: move the freeing of the rqb_entry to after the print
function that references it.
Fixes: 411de511c694 ("scsi: lpfc: Fix RQ empty firmware trap")
Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org> # v4.17+
Signed-off-by: James Smart <james.smart(a)broadcom.com>
---
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_mem.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_mem.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_mem.c
index 79386e294fb9..be54fbf5146f 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_mem.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_mem.c
@@ -721,7 +721,6 @@ lpfc_rq_buf_free(struct lpfc_hba *phba, struct lpfc_dmabuf *mp)
drqe.address_hi = putPaddrHigh(rqb_entry->dbuf.phys);
rc = lpfc_sli4_rq_put(rqb_entry->hrq, rqb_entry->drq, &hrqe, &drqe);
if (rc < 0) {
- (rqbp->rqb_free_buffer)(phba, rqb_entry);
lpfc_printf_log(phba, KERN_ERR, LOG_INIT,
"6409 Cannot post to HRQ %d: %x %x %x "
"DRQ %x %x\n",
@@ -731,6 +730,7 @@ lpfc_rq_buf_free(struct lpfc_hba *phba, struct lpfc_dmabuf *mp)
rqb_entry->hrq->entry_count,
rqb_entry->drq->host_index,
rqb_entry->drq->hba_index);
+ (rqbp->rqb_free_buffer)(phba, rqb_entry);
} else {
list_add_tail(&rqb_entry->hbuf.list, &rqbp->rqb_buffer_list);
rqbp->buffer_count++;
--
2.26.2
Avoid skipping what appears to be a no-op set-domain-ioctl if the cache
coherency state is inconsistent with our target domain. This also has
the utility of using the population of the pages to validate the backing
store.
The danger in skipping the first set-domain is leaving the cache
inconsistent and submitting stale data, or worse leaving the clean data
in the cache and not flushing it to the GPU. The impact should be small
as it requires a no-op set-domain as the very first ioctl in a
particular sequence not found in typical userspace.
Reported-by: Zbigniew Kempczyński <zbigniew.kempczynski(a)intel.com>
Fixes: 754a25442705 ("drm/i915: Skip object locking around a no-op set-domain ioctl")
Testcase: igt/gem_mmap_offset/blt-coherency
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris(a)chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen(a)linux.intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Zbigniew Kempczyński <zbigniew.kempczynski(a)intel.com>
Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org> # v5.2+
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c | 28 ++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
index 7c90a63c273d..fcce6909f201 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
@@ -508,21 +508,6 @@ i915_gem_set_domain_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
if (!obj)
return -ENOENT;
- /*
- * Already in the desired write domain? Nothing for us to do!
- *
- * We apply a little bit of cunning here to catch a broader set of
- * no-ops. If obj->write_domain is set, we must be in the same
- * obj->read_domains, and only that domain. Therefore, if that
- * obj->write_domain matches the request read_domains, we are
- * already in the same read/write domain and can skip the operation,
- * without having to further check the requested write_domain.
- */
- if (READ_ONCE(obj->write_domain) == read_domains) {
- err = 0;
- goto out;
- }
-
/*
* Try to flush the object off the GPU without holding the lock.
* We will repeat the flush holding the lock in the normal manner
@@ -560,6 +545,19 @@ i915_gem_set_domain_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
if (err)
goto out;
+ /*
+ * Already in the desired write domain? Nothing for us to do!
+ *
+ * We apply a little bit of cunning here to catch a broader set of
+ * no-ops. If obj->write_domain is set, we must be in the same
+ * obj->read_domains, and only that domain. Therefore, if that
+ * obj->write_domain matches the request read_domains, we are
+ * already in the same read/write domain and can skip the operation,
+ * without having to further check the requested write_domain.
+ */
+ if (READ_ONCE(obj->write_domain) == read_domains)
+ goto out_unpin;
+
err = i915_gem_object_lock_interruptible(obj, NULL);
if (err)
goto out_unpin;
--
2.20.1
Dear Beneficiary,
Be informed that Your ATM CARD PIN is 0985. Your daily Card withdrawal Limit is USD$10,000.00 per day. The Card is valid till April 2024 and the total amount in the ATM Master Card is Seven Hundred & Fifty Nine Thousand Dollars Only (USD$759,000.00).
This is your overdue Compensation Funds for Covid-19 Unemployment benefit and due to you paying your tax regularly as a good citizen of your country. Kindly reply for more details to receive your ATM card through express Courier delivery service.
Regards,
Christopher Jackson
Publicity Secretary
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Stay safe Covid-19 is real
If i915.ko is being used as a passthrough device, it does not know if
the host is using intel_iommu. Mixing the iommu and gfx causing a few
issues (such as scanout overfetch) which we need to workaround inside
the driver, so if we detect we are running under a hypervisor, also
assume the device access is being virtualised.
Reported-by: Stefan Fritsch <sf(a)sfritsch.de>
Suggested-by: Stefan Fritsch <sf(a)sfritsch.de>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris(a)chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw(a)linux.intel.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen(a)linux.intel.com>
Cc: Stefan Fritsch <sf(a)sfritsch.de>
Cc: stable(a)vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 1a5729932c81..02a3dac412d8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
#include <uapi/drm/i915_drm.h>
#include <uapi/drm/drm_fourcc.h>
+#include <asm/hypervisor.h>
+
#include <linux/io-mapping.h>
#include <linux/i2c.h>
#include <linux/i2c-algo-bit.h>
@@ -1760,6 +1762,13 @@ static inline bool intel_vtd_active(void)
if (intel_iommu_gfx_mapped)
return true;
#endif
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_HYPERVISOR_GUEST
+ /* Running as a guest, we assume the host is enforcing VT'd */
+ if (x86_hyper_type != X86_HYPER_NATIVE)
+ return true;
+#endif
+
return false;
}
--
2.20.1