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: <CALCETrXby82sgbGTcSZFj54t=resYcwtPbcFRNh6Ksbr+Ow8HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:50:04 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn@...omium.org>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: DRAM unreliable under specific access patern

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:23 AM, One Thousand Gnomes
<gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> 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 ?

Can you actually damage anyone else's data using a 1 GB hugepage?

--Andy

>
> Alan



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/