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 _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
