4 ms·
As long as rowhammer is still out there, aint none of your memory safe. Fixing rowhammer is the memory safety absolutism I want to hear more about.
by bloaf 2mo ago
As long as rowhammer is still out there, aint none of your memory safe. Fixing rowhammer is the memory safety absolutism I want to hear more about.
- inigyou 2mo agoECC memory fixes rowhammer. And random bitflips. Everyone should have ECC memory, but Intel disagrees because they are greedy. My system sometimes detects a few bitflips per day.
- bloaf 2mo agoThere have been demonstrated rowhammer-based ECC bypass attacks. ECC mitigates but does not fix rowhammer.
- userbinator 2mo agoMy system sometimes detects a few bitflips per day. Perhaps you should replace your RAM, or it's a sign that you have a massive source of radiation lurking somewhere?
- inigyou 2mo agoI assumed this is just normal in DDR5 and the reason I only had motherboards with ECC to choose from. I do have quite a lot of it. It wouldn't be the first time engineers pushed something close to the unreliability limit and compensated with a mechanism to make it more reliable.
- ssokolow 2mo ago*nod* I remember an interview with Steve Gibson (author of SpinRite) 10 or 20 years ago where he was talking about how much modern-at-the-time hard drives relied on ECC to reliably achieve higher data densities when it used to be a sign of a drive going bad.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- e2le 2mo agoDefective memory is another issue to be aware of and somewhat common. Around 10% of Firefox crash reports are due to bit flips. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47252971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47252971
- mikewarot 2mo agoAmen, any RAM that is subject to bitflips, regardless of how it's arranged, should be rejected as a defective design. It's insane that we permit this crap to happen in the first place.