Subject: Re: mlock(1)
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040924132247.W1973@build.pdx.osdl.net>
References: <41547C16.4070301@pobox.com>
	 <20040924132247.W1973@build.pdx.osdl.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1096060045.10800.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:07:25 +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 864
Lines: 17

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.

-
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/