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    [W:0.046 / U:58.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site