Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:11:39 +0000
In-Reply-To: <ZD12htq6dWg0tg2e@google.com> (message from Sean Christopherson
 on Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:40:38 -0700)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <diqzv8huxwl0.fsf@ackerleytng-cloudtop.c.googlers.com>
Subject: Re: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9]
 KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM)
From:   Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@google.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     david@redhat.com, chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org,
        mail@maciej.szmigiero.name, vbabka@suse.cz, vannapurve@google.com,
        yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
        dhildenb@redhat.com, qperret@google.com, tabba@google.com,
        michael.roth@amd.com, wei.w.wang@intel.com, rppt@kernel.org,
        liam.merwick@oracle.com, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com,
        jarkko@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Precedence: bulk

Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 17.04.23 17:40, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> > 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 ...

> I'm definitely open to other suggestions, but I suspect it's going to be  
> difficult
> to be more precise than something like "guarded".

> E.g. we discussed "unmappable" at one point, but the memory can still be  
> mapped,
> just not via mmap().  And it's not just about mappings, e.g. read() and  
> its many
> variants are all disallowed too, despite the kernel direct map still  
> being live
> (modulo SNP requirements).

I'm for renaming the concept because restrictedmem is quite a
mouthful. :)

How about "concealedmem" or "obscuredmem" to highlight the idea of this
memory being hidden/unreadable/unmappable from userspace?

Guarded is better than restricted but doesn't really highlight how/in
what way it is being guarded.