Re:Once thought safe, DDR4 memory shown to be vulnerable to ...
by swinglock on Friday March 18, 2016 @03:55AM
(#11310468)
But is it reliable? Since this is news, I assume memtest won't detect most rowhammer vulnerable systems.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Once thought safe, DDR4 memory shown to be vulnerable to ...
by kondbg on Friday March 18, 2016 @09:43AM
(#11311705)
Memtest86's rowhammer test is pretty reliable. In fact, since the test's inclusion, so many Rowhammer-related errors have been observed that the developers of Memtest86 split the test into two passes (a high-frequency hammer test and a lower-frequency, rate-limited hammer test) due to the sheer number of users failing the high-frequency Rowhammer pass. [1]
Re:Once thought safe, DDR4 memory shown to be vulnerable to ...
by yuhong on Friday March 18, 2016 @02:26PM
(#11313771)
I wonder what is the return rate for memory due to this test.
Re:Once thought safe, DDR4 memory shown to be vulnerable to ...
by cnvogel on Sunday March 20, 2016 @04:05AM
(#11322211)
I guess the number of "enthusiasts" running Memtest on their (or their acquaintances') PCs still is miniscule. So in my opinion no one would notice, except if a return questionnaire explicitly included a
[√] error while using memtest
field. Keep in mind that newer versions of Microsoft's Windows include their own memory tester. Most people will, if at all, use this.