From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:02:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:02:40 -0400 Received: from weta.f00f.org ([203.167.249.89]:22417 "EHLO weta.f00f.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:02:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 04:03:26 +1200 From: Chris Wedgwood To: David Maynor Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: encrypted swap Message-ID: <20010808040326.G26290@weta.f00f.org> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010807103637.00a88b60@pop.prism.gatech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010807103637.00a88b60@pop.prism.gatech.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-No-Archive: Yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 10:37:57AM -0400, David Maynor wrote: This is a should-if debate, in my opinion. That is, not if you can do it, but should you. Has anybody thought of the performance hit that you would take encrypting your swap? Yes, and people have written papers about it. If you use hardware, the difference is insignificant. In software, it's measurable (maybe a 30% hit) but still quite acceptable. See the Usenix Security Symposium Proceedings for 2000 (I'm too lazy to find the paper myself). --cw