On Tue, 2020-03-17 at 14:24 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 3/17/20 2:06 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:35:12PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > On 3/17/20 4:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > Back then when the whole SME machinery started getting mainlined, it > > > > was agreed that for simplicity, clarity and sanity's sake, the terms > > > > denoting encrypted and not-encrypted memory should be "encrypted" and > > > > "decrypted". And the majority of the code sticks to that convention > > > > except those two. So rename them. > > > Don't "unencrypted" and "decrypted" mean different things? > > > > > > Unencrypted to me means "encryption was never used for this data". > > > > > > Decrypted means "this was/is encrypted but here is a plaintext copy". > > Maybe but linguistical semantics is not the point here. > > > > The idea is to represent a "binary" concept of memory being encrypted > > or memory being not encrypted. And at the time we decided to use > > "encrypted" and "decrypted" for those two things. > > Yeah, agreed. We're basically trying to name "!encrypted". > > > Do you see the need to differentiate a third "state", so to speak, of > > memory which was never encrypted? > > No, there are just two states. I just think the "!encrypted" case > should not be called "decrypted". Nor do I, it's completely misleading.
