Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 6 May 2023 11:16:04 +0200 | Subject | Re: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM) | From | David Hildenbrand <> |
| |
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
| |