lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:26:06 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <>
To:     Brijesh Singh <>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <>,,,,
        Tom Lendacky <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Radim Krčmář <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/mm: add .data..decrypted section to hold
 shared variables

dropping stable@

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> During the initial SEV/SME patch review cycle we had some discussion about
> using decrypted vs unencrypted. At that time the consensus was
> that a memory range mapped with C=0 should be referred as 'decrypted'.

Yes, the idea was to avoid having "unencrypted" *and* "decrypted" to
mean pretty much the same thing for ease of understanding just by
looking at the name.

Also whether the data was initially unencrypted or was decrypted is
immaterial - you only need to know how to access it.

> Having said so, I do see your point and I am not oppose to calling it
> 'unencrypted' if others agrees to it.

No, please don't. Let's stick with "decrypted" for everything.


SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists