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;
Message-ID: <6db68140-0612-a7a3-2cec-c583b2ed3a61@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 May 2023 22:00:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9]
 KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM)
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        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
References: <20221202061347.1070246-1-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
 <ZD1oevE8iHsi66T2@google.com>
 <658018f9-581c-7786-795a-85227c712be0@redhat.com>
 <CS465PQZS77J.J1RP6AJX1CWZ@suppilovahvero>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <CS465PQZS77J.J1RP6AJX1CWZ@suppilovahvero>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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