linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/mm: add .data..decrypted section to hold shared variables

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

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 <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)
--