lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: mlock(1)
    * 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.

    thanks,
    -chris
    --
    Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
    -
    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:0.022 / U:148.612 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site