On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 04:17:45PM +0200, anonym wrote: > > I experimented with yet another approach to improve the situation of our > > memory wiping mechanism. Maybe all we needed to fix the current process > > was 0f1f476d, but well... > > [...] > > I've now benchmarked current devel vs. the feature/hugetlb_mem_wipe > branch. I was done in a 64-bit VM with 8 GB of RAM. In each test I > verified that the memory was completely filled with the pattern before > wiping.
Thanks _a lot_ for your benchmarks. > > Provided a little more feedback, this could go in 0.14. We can always > > revert if rc1 proves it deficient. > > Given that: > > * current devel cleans *all* memory in the most common case (PAE > kernel), and that it does so without taking very much more time, and > * I'm unsure what the implications are of hugetlb_mem_wipe exiting with > that error on a non-PAE kernel, > > I'd rather wait with merging feature/hugetlb_mem_wipe until after Tails > 0.14. I agree. It looks like `feature/hugetlb_mem_wipe` needs a little bit of polishing, at least on non-PAE kernels. It also looks like we could tune the parameters to clean up a little bit more memory. -- Ague
pgppAo6BoATuk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
