[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180830092606.GC18459@nazgul.tnic>
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