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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:42:22 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <>
To:     Sean Christopherson <>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,, Paolo Bonzini <>,
        David Hildenbrand <>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <>,
        Juergen Gross <>, Deep Shah <>,
        VMware Inc <>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <>,
        Wanpeng Li <>,
        Jim Mattson <>,
        Joerg Roedel <>, Peter H Anvin <>,
        Tony Luck <>,
        Dan Williams <>,
        Andi Kleen <>,
        Kirill Shutemov <>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 02/11] x86/tdx: Introduce INTEL_TDX_GUEST config option

On 10/5/21 1:33 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 07:51:56PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>>> +config INTEL_TDX_GUEST
>>> +	bool "Intel Trusted Domain eXtensions Guest Support"
>> ...
>>> +	  Provide support for running in a trusted domain on Intel processors
>>> +	  equipped with Trusted Domain eXtensions. TDX is a Intel technology
>> I haven't seen this particular punctuation "eXtensions" anywhere.  Intel
>> documentation writes it as "Extensions".  Better to be consistent.

It's less about what Intel calls it and more defining acronyms by
capitalizing the letters used in the acronym.  This:

	git log -p arch/x86/ | grep eXtension

shows at least SGX and MPX in the past have done the "eXtension" thing.

So, yes, please pick one.  But, don't throw out "eXtension" because it
hasn't been used before.  It has.  I'd also advise against using the
Intel documentation as gospel here.  It's *not* a good example to
blindly follow.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists