Re: Rename restrictedmem => guardedmem? (was: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM)

[David Hildenbrand]

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