kernel-hardening - Re: rowhammer protection [was Re: Getting interrupt every million cache misses]

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20161028093547.GA9291@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:35:47 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: rowhammer protection [was Re: Getting interrupt every million
 cache misses]


* Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:

> Would it make sense to sample the counter on context switch, do some
> accounting on a per-task cache miss counter, and slow down just the
> single task(s) with a too high cache miss rate? That way there's no
> global slowdown (which I assume would be the case here). The task's
> slice of CPU would have to be taken into account because otherwise you
> could have multiple cooperating tasks that each escape the limit but
> taken together go above it.

Attackers could work this around by splitting the rowhammer workload between 
multiple threads/processes.

I.e. the problem is that the risk may come from any 'unprivileged user-space 
code', where the rowhammer workload might be spread over multiple threads, 
processes or even users.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.