On 4/29/20 5:50 PM, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
On 4/29/20 5:15 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:08:31PM +0200, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
On 4/29/20 3:29 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
From: Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Protected virtualization/IBM Secure Execution for Linux protects
guest memory and state from the host.
Add some basic information about technology and a brief guide
on setting up secure guests with libvirt.
Signed-off-by: Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Paulo de Rezende Pinatti <ppinatti@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
docs/kbase.html.in | 3 +
docs/kbase/protected_virtualization.rst | 188
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'd suggest calling this s390_protected_virt.rst
We can do that.
diff --git a/docs/kbase.html.in b/docs/kbase.html.in
index c586e0f676..05a3239224 100644
--- a/docs/kbase.html.in
+++ b/docs/kbase.html.in
@@ -14,6 +14,9 @@
<dt><a href="kbase/secureusage.html">Secure usage</a></dt>
<dd>Secure usage of the libvirt APIs</dd>
+ <dt><a
href="kbase/protected_virtualization.html">Protected
virtualization</a></dt>
"s390 Protected virtualization" as the title
The terminology that was used in the KVM upstream code is simply
protected
virtualization without a prefix, so I'd avoid creating a new
denomination in
libvirt.
Putting an "s390" prefix on this isn't inventing new terminology - it is
just making it obvious to users what target it applies to.
Daniel & Viktor: Would calling it "Protected virtualization on s390"
serve both of you?
I can live with that.
Alternatively we could use the (unmodified) marketing name "IBM Secure
Execution for Linux" here and below in the RST and reverse the "also
known
as" sentence in the overview.
That's even worse IMHO. Just put an s390 prefix on the current text.
Regards,
Daniel
--
Kind Regards,
Viktor
