Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ryzen-Test & Stress-Run Make It Easy To Cause Segmentation Faults On Zen CPUs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Marc Driftmeyer
    replied
    Originally posted by SaucyJack View Post
    Pretty sure that small number of users thing is BS. It happens on my ryzen constantly using gcc.
    Do you believe the vast majority of Linux [or large number of users] actually use GCC? I've got it installed and don't touch it. It's there for other bits that require it for certain side needs. Where's this bug in LLVM/Clang? Is there one?

    Leave a comment:


  • Shiba
    replied
    Originally posted by chuckula View Post
    I'd rather have one undergrad intern at AMD with a modicum of training trying to actually fix the microcode vs. a million Quaridiots drooling over themselves while they chant about open source and do nothing of value.
    You really have quite an eye for people, indeed AMD is doing a wonderful job in not having the slightest idea where the problem lies. If you are incapable of doing anything of value, it doesn't mean everyone else must be like you.

    Leave a comment:


  • chithanh
    replied
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    Can you reproduce the problem with win10?
    The problem can be reproduced in Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL).

    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Originally posted by nightmarex View Post
    (John there's threads you promised to drop an update in and haven't please do so)
    Is "John" in this case me ? If so, I don't think I promised (or even "said") that I would provide an update, just that I would make sure the info and concerns were getting to the right people. I did that, and posted back to confirm it.

    If that isn't how you read things could you try to point me to the threads ? Thanks...
    I don't remember such a thing either, and I think I read through all the threads on reddit, Phoronix and Gentoo forums. Closest I could find was this statement:

    Originally posted by bridgmanAMD on reddit
    I have asked the engineers working on it if we can arrange some kind of interim update.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment...y_bug/dk0j0rj/
    But there were no actual promises made about providing an update.

    Leave a comment:


  • ramrod
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post

    you really think a monopole of the right to fix that bug is better for the customers than a customer who can pay anyone who is able to perform the bugfix ?

    i think you just fear free market because it maybe is to complex for your thoughts but i am 100% sure open-source allows free market and this is what will fix the bug in the end much better than this closed source model.
    Please take this to a different thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • gurv
    replied
    Yeah first fail happens on my 1700 in 36s and 5 fails within 132s
    Not too happy about it

    I knew I should never have bought a new architecture at its release.
    Next time, I'll wait for the second or third stepping

    It doesn't happen on windows so I wonder if a workaround could be implemented in the kernel.

    Leave a comment:


  • SaucyJack
    replied
    Pretty sure that small number of users thing is BS. It happens on my ryzen constantly using gcc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by chuckula View Post

    Yeah that's a load of crap from Quaridiot who assumes that magically open sourcing CPU microcode will mean that bugs can't happen.

    Just like the open source OpenSSL has literally never had a single bug ever.

    Yeah -- just like that -- with the one major exception being that OpenSSL code is at least auditable using normal tools while CPU firmware by its very nature is going to be much more esoteric be it "open source" or not.

    I'd rather have one undergrad intern at AMD with a modicum of training trying to actually fix the microcode vs. a million Quaridiots drooling over themselves while they chant about open source and do nothing of value.
    you really think a monopole of the right to fix that bug is better for the customers than a customer who can pay anyone who is able to perform the bugfix ?

    i think you just fear free market because it maybe is to complex for your thoughts but i am 100% sure open-source allows free market and this is what will fix the bug in the end much better than this closed source model.

    Leave a comment:


  • Beherit
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    and on an opensource system from top to botton this bug would not happen...
    It doesn't happen when using Microsoft Windows. Which is the diametrical opposite of open source.

    Leave a comment:


  • chuckula
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post

    the ryzen GCC compiling segfault bug in the closed source microcode is the best example why open-source from top to bottom matters.
    and on an opensource system from top to botton this bug would not happen...
    it just monopoles the bug-fix to one company otherwise if it was open-source many companies can compete to fix the bug
    in the end it is just magic security features so in the end we all can be "save" ,... and "save" in this meaning means that we are save to say that we can not and we should not fix bugs instead we need to obey our masters and hope for an update.
    Yeah that's a load of crap from Quaridiot who assumes that magically open sourcing CPU microcode will mean that bugs can't happen.

    Just like the open source OpenSSL has literally never had a single bug ever.

    Yeah -- just like that -- with the one major exception being that OpenSSL code is at least auditable using normal tools while CPU firmware by its very nature is going to be much more esoteric be it "open source" or not.

    I'd rather have one undergrad intern at AMD with a modicum of training trying to actually fix the microcode vs. a million Quaridiots drooling over themselves while they chant about open source and do nothing of value.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by c2h5oh View Post
    Most DDR4 faster than 2333 requires 1.35V
    Exactly, but for whatever reason my motherboard wants to set it to 1.2v, even though the default speed is 3GHz. That's actually pretty stable, but if I OC to 3.2, then I need to bump up the voltage.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X