From: Simon Tatham Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:14:04 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Actually, VirtualLock() looks better as \cw{} not \c{}. X-Git-Tag: 0.53~36 X-Git-Url: https://asedeno.scripts.mit.edu/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=1601559c8cf1fe62b781e9bc412aa6239934eea5;p=PuTTY.git Actually, VirtualLock() looks better as \cw{} not \c{}. [originally from svn r1826] --- diff --git a/doc/faq.but b/doc/faq.but index 2916a92e..8910010c 100644 --- a/doc/faq.but +++ b/doc/faq.but @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -\versionid $Id: faq.but,v 1.31 2002/08/09 09:11:09 simon Exp $ +\versionid $Id: faq.but,v 1.32 2002/08/09 09:14:04 simon Exp $ \A{faq} PuTTY FAQ @@ -795,15 +795,15 @@ all. For this reason we now believe PuTTY's DSA implementation is probably OK. However, if you have the choice, we still recommend you use RSA instead. -\S{faq-virtuallock}{Question} Couldn't Pageant use \c{VirtualLock()} -to stop private keys being written to disk? +\S{faq-virtuallock}{Question} Couldn't Pageant use +\cw{VirtualLock()} to stop private keys being written to disk? -Unfortunately not. The \c{VirtualLock()} function in the Windows API -doesn't do a proper job: it may prevent small pieces of a process's -memory from being paged to disk while the process is running, but it -doesn't stop the process's memory as a whole from being swapped -completely out to disk when the process is long-term inactive. And -Pageant spends most of its time inactive. +Unfortunately not. The \cw{VirtualLock()} function in the Windows +API doesn't do a proper job: it may prevent small pieces of a +process's memory from being paged to disk while the process is +running, but it doesn't stop the process's memory as a whole from +being swapped completely out to disk when the process is long-term +inactive. And Pageant spends most of its time inactive. \H{faq-admin} Administrative questions