[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:53:01 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Re: rowhammer protection [was Re: Getting
interrupt every million cache misses]
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:35:47AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Would it make sense to sample the counter on context switch, do some
> > accounting on a per-task cache miss counter, and slow down just the
> > single task(s) with a too high cache miss rate? That way there's no
> > global slowdown (which I assume would be the case here). The task's
> > slice of CPU would have to be taken into account because otherwise you
> > could have multiple cooperating tasks that each escape the limit but
> > taken together go above it.
>
> Attackers could work this around by splitting the rowhammer workload between
> multiple threads/processes.
With the proposed approach, they could split across multiple CPUs
instead, no?
... or was that covered in a prior thread?
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
