On May 25, 2017 5:38:35 AM GMT+02:00, Kai Krakow <hurikha...@gmail.com> wrote: >Am Wed, 24 May 2017 12:30:36 -0700 >schrieb Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org>: > >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Ian Zimmerman <i...@primate.net> >> wrote: >> > On 2017-05-24 08:00, Kai Krakow wrote: >> > >> >> Unix semantics suggest that /tmp is not expected to survive >reboots >> >> anyways (in contrast, /var/tmp is expected to survive reboots), so >> >> tmpfs is a logical consequence to use for /tmp. >> > >> > /tmp is wiped by the bootmisc init job anyway. >> > >> >> In general I haven't found anything that is bothered by /var/tmp >being >> lost on reboot, but obviously that is something you need to be >> prepared for if you put it on tmpfs. >> >> One thing that wasn't mentioned is that having /tmp in tmpfs might >> also have security benefits depending on what is stored there, since >> it won't be written to disk. If you have a filesystem on tmpfs and >> your swap is encrypted (which you should consider setting up since it >> is essentially "free") then /tmp also becomes a useful dumping ground >> for stuff that is decrypted for temporary processing. For example, >if >> you keep your passwords in a gpg-encrypted file you could copy it to >> /tmp, decrypt it there, do what you need to, and then delete it. >That >> wouldn't leave any recoverable traces of the file. > >Interesting point... How much performance impact does encrypted swap >have? I don't mean any benchmark numbers but real life experience from >your perspective when the system experiences memory pressure?
I have my laptop encrypted. Has 16GB and occasionally it does use swap. With it all being on SSD. I am not noticing any slowdowns because of it. -- Joost -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
