Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:26:06 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/mm: add .data..decrypted section to hold shared variables |
| |
dropping stable@
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote: > During the initial SEV/SME patch review cycle we had some discussion about > using decrypted vs unencrypted. At that time the consensus was > that a memory range mapped with C=0 should be referred as 'decrypted'.
Yes, the idea was to avoid having "unencrypted" *and* "decrypted" to mean pretty much the same thing for ease of understanding just by looking at the name.
Also whether the data was initially unencrypted or was decrypted is immaterial - you only need to know how to access it.
> Having said so, I do see your point and I am not oppose to calling it > 'unencrypted' if others agrees to it.
No, please don't. Let's stick with "decrypted" for everything.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) --
| |