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 <[email protected]> | 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. _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
