lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: mlock(1)
Chris Wright wrote:
> * Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:
>
>>On Gwe, 2004-09-24 at 21:22, Chris Wright wrote:
>>
>>>Hard to say if it's a policy decision outside the scope of the app.
>>>Esp. if the app knows it needs to not be swapped. Either something that
>>>has realtime needs, or more specifically, privacy needs. Don't need to
>>>mlock all of gpg to ensure key data never hits swap.
>>
>>Keys are a different case anyway. We can swap them if we have encrypted
>>swap (hardware or software) and we could use the crypto lib just to
>>crypt some pages in swap although that might be complex. As such a
>>MAP_CRYPT seems better than mlock. If we don't have cryptable swap then
>>fine its mlock.
>
>
> Yeah, sounds nice. This is still very much an app specific policy, not
> something that a helper such as mlock(1) would solve.

It's all app-specific policy. mlock(1) allows the sysadmin to apply
app-specific policy on top of whatever app-specific policy the engineer
has chosen to hardcode into his app.

A smart sysadmin that knows the working set of his _local configuration_
of a given app is sometimes in a better position to make a decision
about mlockall(2) than the engineer.

Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site