Re: DRAM unreliable under specific access patern

[Mark Seaborn]

On 6 January 2015 at 15:20, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon 2015-01-05 19:23:29, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > In the meantime, I created test that actually uses physical memory,
> > > 8MB apart, as described in some footnote. It is attached. It should
> > > work, but it needs boot with specific config options and specific
> > > kernel parameters.
> >
> > Why not just use hugepages. You know the alignment guarantees for 1GB
> > pages and that means you don't even need to be root
> >
> > In fact - should we be disabling 1GB huge page support by default at this
> > point, at least on non ECC boxes ?
>
> Actually, I could not get my test code to run; and as code from
>
> https://github.com/mseaborn/rowhammer-test
>
> reproduces issue for me, I stopped trying. I could not get it to
> damage memory of other process than itself (but that should be
> possible), I guess that's next thing to try.

FYI, rowhammer-induced bit flips do turn out to be exploitable.  Here
are the results of my research on this:
http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2015/03/exploiting-dram-rowhammer-bug-to-gain.html

Cheers,
Mark
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/