| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:07:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de> To: Folkert van Heusden <folkert@...heusden.com> cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, roland <devzero@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Software based ECC ? On Aug 12 2007 18:51, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > >> > http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/softecc:ddopson-meng/softecc_ddopson-meng.pdf >> > "SoftECC : A System for Software Memory Integrity Checking" >> >> Personally, I'd recommend just shelling out the bucks for hardware ECC if >> the reliability matters. > >a question and an idea: Q: is ecc guaranteed to detect all bitflips? > >Idea: what about a multicore system (3 or more) that runs the same >processes on 2 cores and a third core verifying that they both do the >same? As I think it is not only ram that can become faulty. Indeed. And for example BOINC (Seti@...e) have to consider this. Hence they recalculate each work unit at least three times and then compare between each. What makes this different from ECC is that the checksum is not calculated on every memory operations, but at the end of a larger block of operations. Of course this may mean that an error can propagate for a while, but the total walltime (including recomputation) is lower. :) Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists