[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:47:39 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
igor.stoppa@...wei.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 PATCH 00/17] prmem: protected memory
On 25/10/2018 00:03, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:34:47AM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>> -- Summary --
>>
>> Preliminary version of memory protection patchset, including a sample use
>> case, turning into write-rare the IMA measurement list.
>
> I haven't looked at the patches yet, but I see a significant issue
> from the subject lines. "prmem" is very similar to "pmem"
> (persistent memory) and that's going to cause confusion. Especially
> if people start talking about prmem and pmem in the context of write
> protect pmem with prmem...
>
> Naming is hard :/
yes, at some point I had to go from rare-write to write-rare because I
realized that the acronym "rw" was likely to be interpreted as "read/write"
I propose to keep prmem for the time being, just to avoid adding extra
changes that are not functional.
Once the code has somewhat settled down, I can proceed with the
renaming. In the meanwhile, a better name could be discussed.
For example, would "prmemory" be sufficiently unambiguous?
--
igor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
