QPRAC: Towards Secure and Practical PRAC-based Rowhammer Mitigation using Priority Queues
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
JEDEC has introduced the Per Row Activation Counting (PRAC) framework for DDR5 and future DRAMs to enable precise counting of DRAM row activations. PRAC enables a holistic mitigation of Rowhammer attacks even at ultra-low Rowhammer thresholds. PRAC uses an Alert Back-Off (ABO) protocol to request the memory controller to issue Rowhammer mitigation requests. However, recent PRAC implementations are either insecure or impractical. For example, Panopticon, the inspiration for PRAC, is rendered insecure if implemented per JEDEC’s PRAC specification. On the other hand, the recent UPRAC proposal is impractical since it needs oracular knowledge of the ‘top- N ‘ activated DRAM rows that require mitigation.This paper provides the first secure, scalable, and practical RowHammer solution using the PRAC framework. The crux of our proposal is the design of a priority-based service queue (PSQ) for mitigations that prioritizes pending mitigations based on activation counts to avoid the security risks of prior solutions. This provides principled security using the reactive ABO protocol. Furthermore, we co-design our PSQ, with opportunistic mitigation on Refresh Management (RFM) operations and proactive mitigation during refresh (REF), to limit the performance impact of ABO-based mitigations. QPRAC provides secure and practical RowHammer mitigation that scales to Rowhammer thresholds as low as 71 while incurring a $0.8 \%$ slowdown for benign workloads, which further reduces to $0 \%$ with proactive mitigations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it