From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1JOILg-0007C0-Bh for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:00:24 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JOILe-00079F-G8 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:00:22 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JOILd-00077L-28 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:00:22 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JOILc-000778-Nw for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:00:20 -0500 Received: from mute.marlboro.edu ([206.192.68.75]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JOILc-0002oO-HU for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:00:20 -0500 Received: from akbar.marlboro.edu (akbar.marlboro.edu [10.1.2.5]) by mute.marlboro.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D60E1F9257 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:00:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from xyz.marlboro.edu (xyz.marlboro.edu [10.1.2.29]) by akbar.marlboro.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A29311E55D for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:00:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.1.4.164] (mdhcp164.marlboro.edu [10.1.4.164]) by xyz.marlboro.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28B43AC3AC for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:03:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <47AF57DF.1000306@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:00:31 -0500 From: Isaac Dupree User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <20080210131656.GA4168@thorin> <47AF0282.4000307@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> <20080210152226.GB7404@thorin> <47AF293F.8070804@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> <20080210170026.GA12941@thorin> <47AF3BD2.6060305@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> <20080210193916.GA22265@thorin> In-Reply-To: <20080210193916.GA22265@thorin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Marlboro-MailScanner: Found to be clean, clean X-Marlboro-MailScanner-From: id@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org X-Marlboro-MailScanner-Information: Please contact techsupport@marlboro.edu for more information X-Marlboro-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-4.399, required 6, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-MailScanner-From: id@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) Subject: Re: [PATCH] read --echo=[yes|no|wildcard] X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:00:22 -0000 Robert Millan wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 01:00:50PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote: >> anyway if a hash is used that takes (by design) around one second on the >> machine (e.g. sha256 repeated thousands? millions? of times), then I >> suppose the time taken to erase the memory used by GRUB would be trivial >> in comparison, assuming(rightly or wrongly) a good implementation... > > The problem is not time, it's just to find the right way to do it. yeah. probably involves thinking about GRUB's allocation and deallocation mechanisms, which I don't know anything about and don't have time to investigate :-/ -Isaac