[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+EHjTwYQRg7bVo_DyVYpdxGR5wgAMopNcVfoCbP07m1YuqKdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:53:58 +0100
From: Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
dhildenb@...hat.com, Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, wei.w.wang@...el.com,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Liam Merwick <liam.merwick@...cle.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9]
KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM)
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 8:16 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
....
> > So the fd content is inaccessible using the ordinary POSIX syscalls. It's
> > only accessible by special entities (e.g., KVM).
> >
> > Most probably I am forgetting something. But maybe that will help to find a
> > more expressive name. Maybe :)
>
> Hidden/Concealed/etc - Too close to secretmem, suffers the "hidden from whom" problem,
> and depending on the use case, the memory may not actually be concealed from the
> user that controls the VMM.
>
> Restricted - "rmem" collides with "reserved memory" in code.
>
> Guarded - Conflicts with s390's "guarded storage", has the "from whom" problem.
>
> Inaccessible - Many of the same problems as "hidden".
>
> Unmappable - Doesn't cover things like read/write, and is wrong in the sense that
> the memory is still mappable, just not via mmap().
>
> Secured - I'm not getting anywhere near this one :-)
How about "protected" ;)? _ducks_
To me the name doesn't matter much, but fwiw I have developed a liking
to "restricted", more than the previous "private", since of all of the
one-word suggestions I think it captures most of what it's trying to
do.
Cheers,
/fuad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists