linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted"

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 linux-cve-announce 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:   Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:53:49 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted"

Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:25:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> TBH, I don't see how
>> 
>> 	if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
>> 		set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)cpu_addr, 1 << page_order);
>>
>> makes more sense than the above. It's both non-sensical unless there is
>
> 9087c37584fb ("dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME for certain DMA masks")

Reading the changelog again...

I have to say that force_dma_unencrypted() makes way more sense in that
context than force_dma_decrypted(). It still wants a comment.

Linguistical semantics and correctness matters a lot. Consistency is
required as well, but not for the price of ambiguous wording.

Thanks,

        tglx