ARM PowerVR SGX: Full 3D driver source code available (leaked)

[Green7]

github.com/<SNIPPED>

link from Reddit

Mod edit: Removed link as it's legally questionable. 

 

[ingoreis]

Make that SGX 3D Direct 3D/openGL Windows Drivers for Qemu possible?

Interresting Information,maybe Notaz can use that to speed up some Things

or LunixBochs and Ptitseb for Virtualizing or GLSHIM.

Interresting Info,thx for posting this ^_^

 

[Granitehead]

Well, using that will be tricky I guess, as it's leaked it's not legal to download or use to make derivative works (which is what we would want to do).

If I understand it correctly, you can use it to make your life easier when reverse engineering (illegally), but you need to make absolutely sure no trace of this source code finds it's way into your source code or it will be illegal do distribute your source code as free software (or at all).

 

[WizardStan]

First commit: 5 months ago. Why has no one heard of this until now? I found some random IRC log about it a month ago but otherwise it's just 4chan talking about it today. Did no one notice or is it not actually useful in any way?

 

[Letalis Sonus]

Luc Verhaegen made a rather lengthy blog post about why this is not just useless but actually harmful towards development of a free driver.

 

[Granitehead]

Maybe just no one noticed...

To me those pdfs in the docs directory seem pretty interesting and it says

"This DDK contains the implementation of the different APIs supported by the graphics core including OGLES 2.0, OGLES 1.1 and EGL 1.4"

which is exactly what was missing before if I understand correctly.

 

[slaeshjag]

No. OGLES = OpenGL ES. 

 

[fusion_power]

Would be interesting to know all the "missing secret stuff" that made it hard to make an open source driver basicly "blind" and through reverse engineering. ^^  Now it could be possible to compare the actual driver source with the so far available open source alternative to find out the differences and similarities.

 

[Granitehead]

No. OGLES = OpenGL ES.

Yes, but the OGLES driver we have is still closed source. If people were allowed to actually /use/ this leaked source, they could probably support OGL too.
Problem is just what Letalis Sonus linked to, you can't just use it and you need to proof your "reverse engineering" wasn't just looking at that source. Luc Verhaegen seems to think it would be okay if one person wrote documentation about the graphics chip using the leaked source and another wrote a driver using that documentation. I'm not sure even this would be legal.

Anyway it's no fun proofing you weren't using the leaked source for your project (no matter if you actually were using it), Luc Verhaegen seems to thinks it's so annoying to proof that's it's now even harder to write a free driver than it was before.

I don't know, maybe.

 

[notaz]

Yeah this is actually bad news. Now IMGtech can blame any open source attempt that shows up that it's based on the leak, and effectively kill it. Similarities between the drivers are inevitable because both would be for the same hardware, and potential open source authors would have to go through hell to prove that they had not used the leak in their work. It's much safer just to not start an open driver now.

It is said that SGX series 5 hardware architecture is "crazy" and messed up, which is supposedly one of the reasons why open driver never showed up. With this leak chances for an open driver are even smaller than tiny chances we had before.

Now it could be possible to compare the actual driver source with the so far available open source alternative

There is no open source alternative and probably will never be.

 

[mcobit]

Awww. Only hope is that IMG might release this code as opensource in the future.

 

[b_o_b]

Now the source is in the open, would it be considered illegal to provide a building - patching script using the source? If not, that might be a workaround.  

 

[Granitehead]

Now the source is in the open, would it be considered illegal to provide a building - patching script using the source? If not, that might be a workaround.

I guess such a script could be in a legal grayzone, but they will probably fight against the distribution of the source itself. Not sure how successful they can be. Is it likely they will be able to make it hard to get?

 

[rohezal]

Can the knowledge from the source of the driver be used to write "on metal" on the gpu? So avoid open gl calls and send vertex / texture data directly to gpu and use its function to better map N64 commands to gpu commands?

 

[Wally]

I've removed the link as the legality of it is questionable. Carry on with the discussion though

 

[M-HT]

Problem is just what Letalis Sonus linked to, you can't just use it and you need to proof your "reverse engineering" wasn't just looking at that source. Luc Verhaegen seems to think it would be okay if one person wrote documentation about the graphics chip using the leaked source and another wrote a driver using that documentation. I'm not sure even this would be legal.

Probably yes - see Clean room design

I've removed the link as the legality of it is questionable. Carry on with the discussion though

I still see the link.

 

[Wally]

Fixed. Thanks

 

[Granitehead]

Problem is just what Letalis Sonus linked to, you can't just use it and you need to proof your "reverse engineering" wasn't just looking at that source. Luc Verhaegen seems to think it would be okay if one person wrote documentation about the graphics chip using the leaked source and another wrote a driver using that documentation. I'm not sure even this would be legal.

Probably yes - see Clean room design

But in the usual clean room process you reverse engineer the information for you documentation, which is legal. But the leaked source (and some documentation included with the source) is possibly illegal to have at all, so I would expect you couldn't admit to use it, you would need to claim you got your information from reverse engineering.

 

[ghostpatch]

was it really necessary to remove the link? are we not able to chose for ourselves? -.-

 

[Granitehead]

was it really necessary to remove the link? are we not able to chose for ourselves? -.-

People are just careful. Piratebay was also sued even though they were only providing (a kind of) links, not hosting anything questionable themselves.