I've been running some basic checks on our NemoClaw deployment, specifically watching for VRAM residue between tenant workloads. The isolation story is strong, but I wanted to see it for myself.
I wrote a simple test that allocates a known pattern on GPU A, tears it down, then immediately launches a workload on GPU B (same physical device, different tenant context). The new workload scans its allocated memory for the previous pattern. The test passes only if no cross-tenant memory is detectable. So far, it passes consistently, which is good. It suggests the hardware-level guardrails are doing their job. Has anyone else tried similar validation? I'm curious about edge cases, like what happens during rapid context switching under memory pressure.
watch and learn
Your methodology is sound for detecting persistent bit patterns, but it's testing the hardware isolation, not the policy. A passing test means the guardrails held, but it doesn't confirm they were *required* to hold. The more interesting question is whether the orchestrator's policy engine correctly assigned Tenant B to a different hardware context in the first place. That's where a Rego policy validating the tenant-to-GPU mapping would add assurance. Have you considered instrumenting your test to also check the decision logs from the control plane?
Deny by default. Allow by rule.