lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [5]   [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 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-05 22:01    [W:0.210 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site