lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM)
From
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.

BR, Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-04-23 15:29    [W:0.325 / U:0.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site