[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6db68140-0612-a7a3-2cec-c583b2ed3a61@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 22:00:44 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: 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>,
tabba@...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>,
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 23.04.23 15:28, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon Apr 17, 2023 at 6:48 PM EEST, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 17.04.23 17:40, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> What do y'all think about renaming "restrictedmem" to "guardedmem"?
>>
>> Yeay, let's add more confusion :D
>>
>> If we're at renaming, I'd appreciate if we could find a terminology that
>> does look/sound less horrible.
>>
>>>
>>> I want to start referring to the code/patches by its syscall/implementation name
>>> instead of "UPM", as "UPM" is (a) very KVM centric, (b) refers to the broader effort
>>> and not just the non-KVM code, and (c) will likely be confusing for future reviewers
>>> since there's nothing in the code that mentions "UPM" in any way.
>>>
>>> But typing out restrictedmem is quite tedious, and git grep shows that "rmem" is
>>> already used to refer to "reserved memory".
>>>
>>> Renaming the syscall to "guardedmem"...
>>
>> restrictedmem, guardedmem, ... all fairly "suboptimal" if you'd ask me ...
>
> In the world of TEE's and confidential computing it is fairly common to
> call memory areas enclaves, even outside SGX context. So in that sense
> enclave memory would be the most correct terminology.
I was also thinking along the lines of isolated_mem or imem ...
essentially, isolated from (unprivileged) user space.
... if we still want to have a common syscall for it.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists