Hi,
anonym wrote (09 Oct 2012 14:17:45 GMT) :
> * feature/hugetlb_mem_wipe:
> - With PAE kernel:
> * Patterns remaining after wipe: ~39K ≃ 600 KiB of memory
> * Time required for wipe: 2.5 seconds.
> - With "normal" non-PAE kernel:
> * Patterns remaining after wipe: 51K ≃ 800 KiB of memory. Also, in
> this case hugetlb_mem_wipe exits at 51% progress with the
> following error:
> [...]
> * Time required for wipe: ~1 second.
This looks very promising!
Ague, what are the advantages of this solution, compared to the "fill
a tmpfs" idea you also had?
(The latter would arguably have a simpler implementation, that most of
us could understand and debug, contrary to the fancy hugetlb_mem_wipe
one. Simplicity matters.)
> * devel (many `sdmem` in parallel thanks to 0f1f476d):
> - With PAE kernel:
> * Patterns remaining after wipe: 0 (!)
> * Time required for wipe: 8 seconds.
> - With "normal" non-PAE kernel:
> * Patterns remaining after wipe: 900K ≃ 14 MiB of memory
> * Time required for wipe: 4 seconds.
anonym, how many such tests did you run?
I find it intriguing that the PAE and non-PAE results differ.
> I'd rather wait with merging feature/hugetlb_mem_wipe until after
> Tails 0.14.
Agreed.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
