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;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date:   Sun, 23 Apr 2023 16:28:16 +0300
Message-Id: <CS465PQZS77J.J1RP6AJX1CWZ@suppilovahvero>
To:     "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>,
        "Sean Christopherson" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "Chao Peng" <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "Vitaly Kuznetsov" <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        "Jim Mattson" <jmattson@google.com>,
        "Joerg Roedel" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>,
        "Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "Vishal Annapurve" <vannapurve@google.com>,
        "Yu Zhang" <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        <dhildenb@redhat.com>, "Quentin Perret" <qperret@google.com>,
        <tabba@google.com>, "Michael Roth" <michael.roth@amd.com>,
        <wei.w.wang@intel.com>, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org>,
        "Liam Merwick" <liam.merwick@oracle.com>,
        "Isaku Yamahata" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
        "Ackerley Tng" <ackerleytng@google.com>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9]
 KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM)
From:   "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
References: <20221202061347.1070246-1-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
 <ZD1oevE8iHsi66T2@google.com>
 <658018f9-581c-7786-795a-85227c712be0@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <658018f9-581c-7786-795a-85227c712be0@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

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=
=20
> does look/sound less horrible.
>
> >=20
> > I want to start referring to the code/patches by its syscall/implementa=
tion name
> > instead of "UPM", as "UPM" is (a) very KVM centric, (b) refers to the b=
roader effort
> > and not just the non-KVM code, and (c) will likely be confusing for fut=
ure reviewers
> > since there's nothing in the code that mentions "UPM" in any way.
> >=20
> > But typing out restrictedmem is quite tedious, and git grep shows that =
"rmem" is
> > already used to refer to "reserved memory".
> >=20
> > 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