linux-kernel - Re: Aerospace and linux

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTimcJx1XMW3XHJD44EJpOnmMzM6KdMDZAs0Adjgr@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:14:57 -0600
From:	Brian Gordon <legerde@...il.com>
To:	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Aerospace and linux

Thank you both.    This has been very helpful for me.

I think I read two conclusions:
1) R/O is a small percentage of RAM
2) To cover this small precentage would be non-trivial

Thank you both very much for your time and knowledge, I'll move along now.



On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com> wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 12:38 PM, Brian Gordon wrote:
>
>> On the more exotic end, I have also seen systems that have dual
>> redundant processors / memories.  Then they add compare logic between
>> the redundant processors that compare most pins each clock cycle.   If
>> any pins are not identical at a clock cycle, then something has gone
>> wrong (SEU, hardware failure, etc..)
>
> Some phone switches do this.  Some of them also have at least two copies
> of everything in memory and will do transactional operations that can be
> rolled back if there is a hardware glitch.
>
>> So, some pages of RAM are going to be read-only and the data in those
>> pages came from some source (file system?).   Can anyone describe a
>> high level strategy to occasionaly provide some coverage of this data?
>
>> So far I have thought about page descriptors adding an MD5 hash
>> whenever they are read-only and first being "loaded/mapped?" and then
>> a background daemon could occasionaly verify.
>
> Makes sense to me.  You might also pick an on-disk format with extra
> checksumming so you could compare the on-disk checksum with the
> in-memory checksum.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> The author works for GENBAND Corporation (GENBAND) who is solely
> responsible for this email and its contents. All enquiries regarding
> this email should be addressed to GENBAND. Nortel has provided the use
> of the nortel.com domain to GENBAND in connection with this email solely
> for the purpose of connectivity and Nortel Networks Inc. has no
> liability for the email or its contents. GENBAND's web site is
> http://www.genband.com
>
--
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/