lists.openwall.net | 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:26:06 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com> Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com> 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. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists