anonym wrote (30 Dec 2011 13:52:08 GMT) :
> 12/28/2011 11:53 PM, intrigeri:
>> Hi,
>>
>> as far as Tails is concerned, I'm thinking of:
>> - on 64-bit hardware, kexec to a 64-bit kernel and use memtest=
>> there; Maxim, have you confirmed by actual testing this works for
>> more than 3GB?
> I just tried your implementation of this in the bugfix/kexec_amd64
> branch
Seems like there's been some misunderstanding.
The bugfix/kexec_amd64 is no implementation of this.
The bugfix/kexec_amd64 branch merely does the same sdmem thing as was
done in Tails 0.9, but kexec's on a 64-bit kernel on 64-bit hardware,
in the hope it makes sdmem wipe more memory.
> on bare-metal, and I'm sad to say that it's not working. The
> following lists the number of occurrences of the pattern for certain
> segments of memory (in megabytes):
> 0 - 10: 348
> 10 - 20: 244233
> 30 - 200: 0
> 200 - 600: each 10 MB block in this segment has ~655K hits*
> 600 -2180: 0
> 2180-2190: 511
> 2190-2330: 0
> 2330-2340: 174
> Rest : 0
> * Note that a 10 MB block can contain at most 655360 occurrences of a
> 16 byte pattern (like ours) so this memory segment is completely
> untouched by the wipe.
Ok. This is a problem, and tends to show that branch does not help
that much. Let's postpone this to post-0.10 days.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri <intrigeri@???>
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
| Every now and then I get a little bit restless
| and I dream of something wild.
