| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1198154013.3205.124.camel@perihelion> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:33:32 -0500 From: Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org> To: Matthew Bloch <matthew@...emark.co.uk> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Testing RAM from userspace / question about memmap= arguments On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 17:06 +0000, Matthew Bloch wrote: > I can see a few potential problems, but since my understanding of the > low-level memory mapping is muddy at best, I won't speculate; I'd just > appreciate any more expert views on whether this does work, or could be > made to work. Yo, I don't think your testing approach is thorough enough. Clearly (knowing your line of business - as a virtual machine provider), you want to do pre-production testing as part of your provisioning. I would suggest instead of using mlock() from userspace of simply writing a kernel module that does this for every page of available memory. You could script it via a minimal userland, containing only busybox, some form of SSH implementation, whatever. Jon. P.S. With the above, you could also know which pages were faulty, an consequently play with some of the bad RAM patches to exclude faulty pages from the virtual machines running on a given host... ;-) -- 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