linux-kernel - Re: DRAM unreliable under specific access patern

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: <20150105192329.5f32c155@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 19:23:29 +0000
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Mark Seaborn <mseaborn@...omium.org>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, luto@...capital.net
Subject: Re: DRAM unreliable under specific access patern

> In the meantime, I created test that actually uses physical memory,
> 8MB apart, as described in some footnote. It is attached. It should
> work, but it needs boot with specific config options and specific
> kernel parameters.

Why not just use hugepages. You know the alignment guarantees for 1GB
pages and that means you don't even need to be root

In fact - should we be disabling 1GB huge page support by default at this
point, at least on non ECC boxes ?

Alan
--
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/