linux-kernel - Re: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM)

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: <b69958b4-da03-ea96-1f21-44a5c2b8a03e@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 6 May 2023 11:16:04 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        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>,
        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 06.05.23 09:44, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 5/5/23 22:00, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I'm fan of the ioctl, if it has a chance of working out.
Yes, me too.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb