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

[Vlastimil Babka]

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.