title: Are there risks associated with IMAGE_FILE_REMOVABLE_RUN_FROM_SWAP or IMAGE_FILE_NET_RUN_FROM_SWAP?
body: <p>I'm thinking of including the <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms680349%28VS.85%29.aspx" rel="noreferrer"><code>IMAGE_FILE_REMOVABLE_RUN_FROM_SWAP</code></a> and <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms680349%28VS.85%29.aspx" rel="noreferrer"><code>IMAGE_FILE_NET_RUN_FROM_SWAP</code></a> PE flags to my executable.</p>
  
  <p>The idea is to prevent occasional exceptions seen by clients who run the executable from the network, for example when network volumes fail to reconnect after sleep.  Up to now we have always advised clients to run executables from locally connected volumes.</p>
  
  <p>However, I don't know enough about virtual memory, the loader etc. to know what, if any, risks there are associated with using these PE flags.</p>
  
  <p>For example, if I do this will more physical memory be consumed by my executable, especially if there are multiple instances of the executable running at the same time?</p>
  
  <p>I'm sorry that I can't give more examples of potential risks, but that's the nature of my question. I have a feeling that there could be downsides to doing this but simply don't know what those downsides could be.</p>