REVIEW 1 cited by
Probabilistic Tracker Management Policies for Low-Cost and Scalable Rowhammer Mitigation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
This paper focuses on mitigating DRAM Rowhammer attacks. In recent years, solutions like TRR have been deployed in DDR4 DRAM to track aggressor rows and then issue a mitigative action by refreshing neighboring victim rows. Unfortunately, such in-DRAM solutions are resource-constrained (only able to provision few tens of counters to track aggressor rows) and are prone to thrashing based attacks, that have been used to fool them. Secure alternatives for in-DRAM trackers require tens of thousands of counters. In this work, we demonstrate secure and scalable rowhammer mitigation using resource-constrained trackers. Our key idea is to manage such trackers with probabilistic management policies (PROTEAS). PROTEAS includes component policies like request-stream sampling and random evictions which enable thrash-resistance for resource-constrained trackers. We show that PROTEAS can secure small in-DRAM trackers (with 16 counters per DRAM bank) even when Rowhammer thresholds drop to 500 while incurring less than 3% slowdown. Moreover, we show that PROTEAS significantly outperforms a recent similar probabilistic proposal from Samsung (called DSAC) while achieving 11X - 19X the resilience against Rowhammer.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
QPRAC: Towards Secure and Practical PRAC-based Rowhammer Mitigation using Priority Queues
QPRAC makes the JEDEC PRAC Rowhammer defense secure and practical using a five-entry priority-based service queue per bank, claiming deterministic security down to a Rowhammer threshold of 22 and 0.8% slowdown at thre...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.