There's no need for 1GB just for a web browser. And why does it have to be useable while a game is running? That's just dumb, when it sucks so much RAM away from the game the user is playing right then. How many wuu users do you think have started up the web browser while they're playing a game, or even know that the ability exists? Pretty close to none, I wager.
Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
- Status
Is it confirmed PS4 reserves 3GB? I thought that was just internet speculation/rumors. Anyhow, in relative terms, nearly 40% is somewhat-ish close to the ridiculous 50% reserve in the wuu, in absolute there's no contest of course. 5GB is a lot more than 1GB, naturally...
Also, games could use more texture diversity in a level without having to resort to streaming if reserved memory was lower. The game disc has a stated capacity of 25GB (single-layer BR disc, presumably), you think any wuu game released so far came close to filling that, with just 1GB available for games?
Also, games could use more texture diversity in a level without having to resort to streaming if reserved memory was lower. The game disc has a stated capacity of 25GB (single-layer BR disc, presumably), you think any wuu game released so far came close to filling that, with just 1GB available for games?
It was 3GB then supposedly 2 GB and there were rumours it could go down to 1GB, not sure what Sony decided...
Since it's very sensitive information (regarding customer reactions) it's under heavy curtains...
Only Nintendo went public on memory availability...
Since it's very sensitive information (regarding customer reactions) it's under heavy curtains...
Only Nintendo went public on memory availability...
Doesn't PS4 and XB1 also reserve two CPU cores for the OS? In all cases, I would expect these to change over time. Sony freed up RAM on the PS3 reserved by the OS as time went on (and even added feature like a system-wide trophy system and in-game XMB). Nintendo freed up hardware on the 3DS (at the expense of some of it's background services which get disabled in certain games utilizing the extra hardware, like the web browser for example).
Unless there is a specific reason Nintendo is reserving half the Wii U's RAM (like gamepad streaming maybe?) I would expect them to do the same. More RAM would benefit certain games, even with the 12.8 GB/sec bandwidth (since loading is bottlenecked by the storage bus and storage media anyways).
Unless there is a specific reason Nintendo is reserving half the Wii U's RAM (like gamepad streaming maybe?) I would expect them to do the same. More RAM would benefit certain games, even with the 12.8 GB/sec bandwidth (since loading is bottlenecked by the storage bus and storage media anyways).
Current internet rumor-mongering is 1 CPU core reserved for OS on PS4 AFAIK, not really sure what the hell the machine would do with two, as you can't multitask on it anyway. Not sure what the machine would do with an entire CPU core anyway, as things like disk and network I/O, background video streaming and so on is supposed to be handled by the auxiliary ARM CPU. There's not that much OS stuff left to deal with when your typical game is running.
The last we've seen is the Shadowfall demo post-mortem that had 6 cores in the game's profile.
One source of CPU usage would be system services and secure API calls to content Sony wants wrapped in DRM.
The sound DSP and other functions are hidden under secure API calls, and other portions may be secured as well.
Reserving another core would keep this from needing to be factored into the game's CPU budget, especially if Sony doesn't want outside coders to know too much about what the secured services do or how much CPU they require.
One source of CPU usage would be system services and secure API calls to content Sony wants wrapped in DRM.
The sound DSP and other functions are hidden under secure API calls, and other portions may be secured as well.
Reserving another core would keep this from needing to be factored into the game's CPU budget, especially if Sony doesn't want outside coders to know too much about what the secured services do or how much CPU they require.
Reserving an entire CPU core just to fuck with hackers isn't just wasteful, it isn't going to work anyway because security through obscurity isn't security. Also, it doesn't neither help nor harm hackers knowing or not knowing how long an OS API call takes to complete.
If it's important (for whatever reason) knowing how long OS calls take to complete, the information will leak out anyway regardless of whatever measures Sony takes. If it isn't documented in official developer manuals (you'd think it would be, since it's often fairly critical how long certain functions take to complete), a developer could just benchmark it manually. Call the routine (a bunch of times if necessary), check against a high-precision timer.
If it's important (for whatever reason) knowing how long OS calls take to complete, the information will leak out anyway regardless of whatever measures Sony takes. If it isn't documented in official developer manuals (you'd think it would be, since it's often fairly critical how long certain functions take to complete), a developer could just benchmark it manually. Call the routine (a bunch of times if necessary), check against a high-precision timer.
If the system API call is a decryption or secure storage routine, knowing the timings can allow for statistical data to be gathered that can point to what the algorithm is doing or rough properties of the key value.
There are ways of making this less useful, such as forcing a fixed time or obfuscating the timing. Rotating keys, changing algorithms, or otherwise modifying what happens under the hood can frustrate the analysis--but doing so is less effective if runtime software can get hints that something like that is going on.
Having an arbitrary application thread wander onto a core running OS services can do things like thrash the core's caches and TLBs, which if intelligently done can then be used as a comparison to what happens when the core runs unmolested.
Even if this information is eventually derived, Sony would be freer if it has spare performance in the system reserve to change algorithms.
(((interference)))
Veteran
PS4 reservation is definitely 2 cores at the moment.
I'm sure DF has stated as much and I've been told that myself (from someone who'd definitely know).
I'm sure DF has stated as much and I've been told that myself (from someone who'd definitely know).
That's nonsense. Just knowing how long the routine takes will no more let you guess a particular algorithm, than knowing how long a secret dish at a restaurant takes to cook lets you know what the ingredients are.
In any case, you can get execution time of system calls just by timing them, so what does it matter?
Like I said, security through obscurity is NOT security, this is one of the most basic truisms in the security field.
That's fucked up.
What on earth are they doing with two cores?!? Nothing!
The CPU pipeline is known, as it is a readily available Jaguar core.
With sufficient knowledge of the hardware, and control of the system so that the unencrypted data is accessible, it is possible to get data that can lead to the extraction of the key.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_channel_attack
If the secure service call must complete in the instant the decrypted data is derived, yes, but that is not required. It is possible to reduce the effectiveness of timing attacks by making the calls obfuscate their true run time.
Keeping a core off-limits to outside software threads can make it harder to manipulate the core into revealing things like what addresses it reads from or where the system code has been loaded by forcing data off-chip and increasing timings in a controlled fashion.
Encryption does depend on at least some obscurity, that's what the secret key depends on.
The assumption is that you can make it hard enough for as long as possible.
A perfect lack of obscurity isn't buying time or security, unless you think you are more secure if you write your passwords out in a forum post.
I consider it a safe bet that it's more than nothing.
pMax
Regular
er... no.
This usually true for cryptography, however - but not always, or at least not totally. See white-box cryptography attempts, for example.
Obscurity aids a lot, and its relative absence aids attackers. A simple example? BD+ virtual machine was relatively easily reversed also thanks to the PATENTs published, which gave out alot of very detailed mechanics to the attackers.
Today's most successful protections -always rely on obscurity, no way.
Yes, but even more than a year after the console's release we still don't have a decent understanding of many of its integral components, and this is probably mainly due to lack of interest, so there's not much directly wuu-related stuff to write about here, sadly.
The hardware hackers, do they even care at all about this completely bombed console? I haven't heard anything about any attempts at making mod-chips, alternative OSes and whatnot for it, but then I haven't exactly been looking for that stuff either. Positive upside for Nintendo: they've found the perfect strategy for piracy protection: make your device so unattractive to customers that hardly anyone wants it..
The hardware hackers, do they even care at all about this completely bombed console? I haven't heard anything about any attempts at making mod-chips, alternative OSes and whatnot for it, but then I haven't exactly been looking for that stuff either. Positive upside for Nintendo: they've found the perfect strategy for piracy protection: make your device so unattractive to customers that hardly anyone wants it..
Proof positive that security by obscurity is a robust defence mechanism.
Oh there is definitely effort being put in. I've seen hacks for vWii to allow for using various Wii homebrew like the USB loaders. Wii wasn't super popular with the hardcore crowd either but it still had one of the most impressive mod communities going. Part of that was surely caused by the minimal online component to Wii games. Not much risk of bans as with PS360.
Interest died really fast on the homebrew front. Long before the wii u dove head first into its... dire straits.
Team twiizers (fail overflow now iirc) Hacked it in record time thanks to some nintendo security foopah (forgot to strip binaries maybe?)... They released a single update to get wii mode homebrew up and running...But never did anything afterwords. Even though they had actual wii u mode ready to go.... Nobody cared.
I guess since its so easy and convenient to do now on android tablets and phones, I guess a lot of the allure of console hacking is gone now. All thats really left is piracy, which is something no self respecting homebrewer would do anyways... so.... Yeah.
- Status
