Re: [PATCH] New phys_addr() syscall

Raul Miller (rdm@test.legislate.com)
Mon, 20 Jul 1998 19:55:10 -0400

Albert D. Cahalan <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
> There were plans to make mlock() available to normal users for
> cryptographic purposes. There would be a quota to protect the
> machine. If a user (or group of users) can get 1/32 of the pages
> below 16 MB, then the system can not allocate 128 kB for DMA.

You'll eventually want to allow memory locked with this variation of
mlock to be migrated out of the DMA region (to deal with fragmentation
issues).

> In general, it is bad to leak information.

But the question is: is the physical address information, or is
protecting it security through obscurity?

-- 
Raul


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html