> On 06/07/2012 03:48 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>> How can the PGP task even be swapped in if it's swapped out and needs to
>> be swapped back in in order to decrypt itself from the swap file? >_<
>
> Either the swap file is unencrypted, or PGP is marked non-swappable.
> (Yes, you can do that.)

Not encrypting the swap file could lead to very interesting data 
leakage, so I'm going to go with (B) the PGP process is not swappable.

I'm sure that most disk encryption companies have figured this one 
out... probably after an "oops!" in beta testing.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>>> How can the PGP task even be swapped in if it's swapped out and needs to
>>> be swapped back in in order to decrypt itself from the swap file? >_<
>>
>> Either the swap file is unencrypted, or PGP is marked non-swappable.
>> (Yes, you can do that.)
>
> Not encrypting the swap file could lead to very interesting data
> leakage,

Yeah. But it's possible to have the OS zero the page file at shutdown. 
(This doesn't save you in case of a power failure, mind you.)

Also, when I last read the PGP manual, it claims to demand that the OS 
not swap out any security data that PGP itself is managing, e.g. 
encryption keys. (It also makes the keys around to different physical 
memory pages, and overwrites the old place with random data, to prevent 
somebody yanking the RAM chips out and deep-freezing them to try to 
recover the data once the power is gone. Really paranoid stuff like that...)

> so I'm going to go with (B) the PGP process is not swappable.

Yeah, I would imagine that's the case.

> I'm sure that most disk encryption companies have figured this one
> out... probably after an "oops!" in beta testing.

More like alpha testing, I should think. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Am 06.07.2012 19:27, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>>> How can the PGP task even be swapped in if it's swapped out and
>>>> needs to
>>>> be swapped back in in order to decrypt itself from the swap file? >_<
>>>
>>> Either the swap file is unencrypted, or PGP is marked non-swappable.
>>> (Yes, you can do that.)
>>
>> Not encrypting the swap file could lead to very interesting data
>> leakage,
>
> Yeah. But it's possible to have the OS zero the page file at shutdown.

Better yet, overwrite it with pseudorandom nonsense.

Post a reply to this message

>>> Not encrypting the swap file could lead to very interesting data
>>> leakage,
>>
>> Yeah. But it's possible to have the OS zero the page file at shutdown.
>
> Better yet, overwrite it with pseudorandom nonsense.

Yeah, that _would_ be better. But there isn't a registry key for that. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Em 06/07/2012 07:20, Invisible escreveu:
> On 06/07/2012 11:17 AM, clipka wrote:
>
>> You're doing something fundamentally wrong here: You should have a
>> single instance of POV-Ray running, with 100% CPU utilization :-P
>>
>> (Hint: Get POV-Ray 3.7!)
>
> Maybe when the beta finishes, eh?

now I understand why you were complaining about really slow rendering of 
cornell box... :)

Post a reply to this message

>>> You're doing something fundamentally wrong here: You should have a
>>> single instance of POV-Ray running, with 100% CPU utilization :-P
>>>
>>> (Hint: Get POV-Ray 3.7!)
>>
>> Maybe when the beta finishes, eh?
>
> now I understand why you were complaining about really slow rendering of
> cornell box... :)

Well, that would only make it 4x faster, wouldn't it? It's still not 
going to turn a 40-minute render into a 15-second render like you 
claimed. :-P

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.07.2012 15:01, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>>> You're doing something fundamentally wrong here: You should have a
>>>> single instance of POV-Ray running, with 100% CPU utilization :-P
>>>>
>>>> (Hint: Get POV-Ray 3.7!)
>>>
>>> Maybe when the beta finishes, eh?
>>
>> now I understand why you were complaining about really slow rendering of
>> cornell box... :)
>
> Well, that would only make it 4x faster, wouldn't it? It's still not
> going to turn a 40-minute render into a 15-second render like you
> claimed. :-P

Not exactly, but do expect more than 4x speedup. You may probably also 
get away with lower radiosity quality settings.

Are you at least using the 64-bit version of 3.6.2?

Post a reply to this message

>> Well, that would only make it 4x faster, wouldn't it? It's still not
>> going to turn a 40-minute render into a 15-second render like you
>> claimed. :-P
>
> Not exactly, but do expect more than 4x speedup.

Um, why?

> You may probably also
> get away with lower radiosity quality settings.

How do you work that one out? Running it in parallel doesn't change the 
math, it just makes it faster.

> Are you at least using the 64-bit version of 3.6.2?

Yes.

Since I now actually have a 64-bit OS...

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.07.2012 18:15, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> Well, that would only make it 4x faster, wouldn't it? It's still not
>>> going to turn a 40-minute render into a 15-second render like you
>>> claimed. :-P
>>
>> Not exactly, but do expect more than 4x speedup.
>
> Um, why?

Because it has been optimized here and there? (And because you have 
hyperthreading besides?)

>> You may probably also
>> get away with lower radiosity quality settings.
>
> How do you work that one out? Running it in parallel doesn't change the
> math, it just makes it faster.

I happen to know that /someone/ (*cough*) had discovered & fixed various 
flaws in the radiosity algorithms & math when he made the feature 
multithreading-ready.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/6/2012 10:36, clipka wrote:
> Better yet, overwrite it with pseudorandom nonsense.

On modern hard disks, this is useless. And by "modern" I mean pretty much 
anything that passed the 1GB boundary.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message