linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 02/16] KVM: selftests: add hooks for managing encrypted guest memory

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7920a4e5-edb4-504c-a30b-7410e425eb14@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:22:45 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
        Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Nathan Tempelman <natet@...gle.com>,
        Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>,
        Steve Rutherford <srutherford@...gle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 02/16] KVM: selftests: add hooks for managing encrypted
 guest memory

On 13/10/21 17:07, Michael Roth wrote:
>>
>> For readability, it's probably better to adopt a standard naming convention
>> for structures, members and  functions ?  For example,
>>
>>          encrypted_phy_pages    ->     enc_phy_pages
>>
>>          struct vm_memcrypt  {    ->    struct vm_mem_enc {
>>
>>          struct vm_memcrypt memcrypt    ->    struct vm_mem_enc  mem_enc
>>
>>          vm_get_encrypted_phy_pages()    -> vm_get_enc_phy_pages
>>
>>
>>
> Makes sense, I will use this naming convention for the next spin.

And again I liked yours more. :)

Paolo