Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:30:07 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |