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.
