On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 12:38:41PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> Furthermore, "the" owner of a page
> may be unclear in a few circumstances.
This is a nontrivial problem... a good solution to it would be useful
even just for accounting purposes.
--
David A. Holland
dholl...@netbsd.org
mar...@duskware.de (Martin Husemann) writes:
>I agree with both. Leave it an admin decision (and maybe default to
>"encrypt"). Also assume that it is possible to complete enough of /etc/rc.d
>without any swapping ;-} so a simple setting in /etc/sysctl.conf will do.
If you don't allow to disable
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 06:21:10PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> >> Always encrypted swap would be even better but ... slow machines.
> > Compared to the time required to put the pages out to disk?
>
> That comparison is relevant only if the system has nothing better to do
> than wait for the page
>> Always encrypted swap would be even better but ... slow machines.
> Compared to the time required to put the pages out to disk?
That comparison is relevant only if the system has nothing better to do
than wait for the page out/in. A few systems probably don't. Most, I
suspect, do, and if
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 17:51:51 -0400
> From: Thor Lancelot Simon
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 09:08:14PM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> > matthew green wrote:
> > > what's the use-case for disabling encrypted swap later?
> >
> > It might be too slow on some machines.
> >
> > > i'd argue
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 09:08:14PM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> matthew green wrote:
> > what's the use-case for disabling encrypted swap later?
>
> It might be too slow on some machines.
>
> > i'd argue we should avoid kauth for this and simply disable
> > it always as i've been unable to
matthew green wrote:
> what's the use-case for disabling encrypted swap later?
It might be too slow on some machines.
> i'd argue we should avoid kauth for this and simply disable
> it always as i've been unable to think of any use case that
> is the only solution.
Always encrypted swap would
what's the use-case for disabling encrypted swap later?
i'd argue we should avoid kauth for this and simply disable
it always as i've been unable to think of any use case that
is the only solution.
.mrg.
> I think everybody believes that regardless of securelevel, root
> should be able to enable encrypted swap. But probably almost
> everyone thinks regular users should not be allowed to enable it.
(Throughout the following, I'm using "root" as shorthand for "a user
without suitable privilege".
Alexander Nasonov writes:
> Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Kamil Rytarowski writes:
>>
>> > Is it possible to avoid negation in the name?
>> >
>> > KAUTH_SYSTEM_ENABLE_SWAP_ENCRYPTION
>>
>> I think the point is to have one permission to enable it, which is
>> perhaps just regular root, and another to
Greg Troxel wrote:
> Kamil Rytarowski writes:
>
> > Is it possible to avoid negation in the name?
> >
> > KAUTH_SYSTEM_ENABLE_SWAP_ENCRYPTION
>
> I think the point is to have one permission to enable it, which is
> perhaps just regular root, and another to disable it if securelevel is
>
Kamil Rytarowski writes:
> Is it possible to avoid negation in the name?
>
> KAUTH_SYSTEM_ENABLE_SWAP_ENCRYPTION
I think the point is to have one permission to enable it, which is
perhaps just regular root, and another to disable it if securelevel is
elevated.
So perhaps there should be two
t;
>
> On Sat, 16 May 2020, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
>
>> Attached patch adds KAUTH_SYSTEM_UNENCRYPTED_SWAP and
>> it forbids changing vm.swap_encrypt from 1 to 0 when
>> securelevel > 0.
>>
>> If there are no objections, I'm going to commit it tomorrow.
m...@netbsd.org wrote:
> No objections from me, but I feel like "will commit unless objected"
> should be done on longer time scales. I spend way too much time on
> netbsd and I still have some days I dont get to reading email for
> whatever reason.
It's a small change, we discussed it on
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> Attached patch adds KAUTH_SYSTEM_UNENCRYPTED_SWAP and
> it forbids changing vm.swap_encrypt from 1 to 0 when
> securelevel > 0.
>
> If there are no objections, I'm going to commit it tomorrow.
No objections f
I'm not sure I like the name!
Can you call it KAUTH_SYSTEM_DISABLE_SWAPENCRYPT ? That more
closely describes the action which is being controlled.
On Sat, 16 May 2020, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
Attached patch adds KAUTH_SYSTEM_UNENCRYPTED_SWAP and
it forbids changing vm.swap_encrypt from 1
Attached patch adds KAUTH_SYSTEM_UNENCRYPTED_SWAP and
it forbids changing vm.swap_encrypt from 1 to 0 when
securelevel > 0.
If there are no objections, I'm going to commit it tomorrow.
--
Alex
Index: share/man/man9/kauth.9
===
17 matches
Mail list logo
