Radeon Vega Pro Introduces A "AMD Secure Processor"

[duby229]

Well Security actually is a bad thing if it feels like "marshal law". Not letting end users modify their BIOS is pretty bad. EDIT: Especially since overclocking on linux effectively is impossible right now.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

FWIW: Radeon Vega Pro Introduces A "AMD Secure Processor"

Should be: Radeon Vega Pro Introduces An "AMD Secure Processor"

[uid313]

and? I do believe a "that's nice dear, but we live in the real world" applies.

Security is not an inherently bad thing, especially for the pro work place where a stolen movie could be worth millions in revenue.

I don't think anyone is going to steal a movie from GPU memory. There would be plenty of easier ways to steal it.

[bridgman]

That's not the point unfortunately... if you want to be able to display certain classes of protected content (eg Netflix) then you are required to have a specific level security in hardware, whether it actually helps or not.

I'm just using Netflix as an example; I'm not sure the security processor is specifically required for it.

[uid313]

Didnt you post something similar about Ryzen PSP, implying that intel CPU's were a viable alternative? LMAO. Try a pen and paper and slide-rule for your secure computing needs.

Yes, I did.
Intel is my pimp. I don't like Intel, their PSP is a binary blob.
But I am not going to change from one pimp to another.
So I am not going to switch from Intel to AMD when they use closed source binary blobs too.
Then I might as well stay with Intel, at least I know their CPU works and GPU and everything works on the same day as the processor is released with same-day launch support and source code already there in the kernel and Mesa since months ago ahead.

[duby229]

Yes, I did.
Intel is my pimp. I don't like Intel, their PSP is a binary blob.
But I am not going to change from one pimp to another.
So I am not going to switch from Intel to AMD when they use closed source binary blobs too.
Then I might as well stay with Intel, at least I know their CPU works and GPU and everything works on the same day as the processor is released with same-day launch support and source code already there in the kernel and Mesa since months ago ahead.

Hah!, that's a good joke. Though, I'm sure everyone who bought Intel's last products launched aren't laughing. It was proably one of -the- buggiest product launches in the history of computers. Right up there with how buggy the P4 Willemette was. EDIT: Pretty much all of the review sites mentioned how uncomfortably buggy the platform was, but every one was just a passing comment. Just goes to show monopoly power at work.

[agd5f]

Then I might as well stay with Intel, at least I know their CPU works and GPU and everything works on the same day as the processor is released with same-day launch support and source code already there in the kernel and Mesa since months ago ahead.

Source code for vega10 was available months ahead of launch (we released the initial code in March IIRC). Note that dGPUs have much shorter lead times (and tend to be more complex) compared to integrated GPUs because they are not tied to CPU cycles. The lead times are designed around having drivers ready by launch. Unfortunately, hw launches and various open source release schedules (kernel, mesa, distros, etc.) rarely align.

[jstefanop]

That's not the point unfortunately... if you want to be able to display certain classes of protected content (eg Netflix) then you are required to have a specific level security in hardware, whether it actually helps or not.

I'm just using Netflix as an example; I'm not sure the security processor is specifically required for it.

Can you confirm this on die security is verifying the BIOS, and any changes to it (PP Table parameters for example) will cause Vega not to boot?

[starshipeleven]

Yea my initial attempts at modifying Vega BIOS caused the card not to boot. So I guess this is why.

bios/firmware signing does not require a security coprocessor to work.

Most board firmware nowadays is locked down like that.

[starshipeleven]

Well Security actually is a bad thing if it feels like "marshal law". Not letting end users modify their BIOS is pretty bad. EDIT: Especially since overclocking on linux effectively is impossible right now.

Yeah, because blocking BIOS modification doesn't also block malware from injecting itself in there.
Really, I'd really like firmwares get some rounds of hardening against bullshit, overclocking can go to hell, it's little more than a game for kiddies nowadays anyway. True OC died decades ago.