Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 May 2023 22:00:44 +0200 | Subject | Re: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM) | From | David Hildenbrand <> |
| |
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
| |