From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C346C4332B for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 17:26:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FEBB2080C for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 17:26:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728354AbgCSR0V (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2020 13:26:21 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:33708 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727146AbgCSR0U (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2020 13:26:20 -0400 Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jEyvW-0006QR-UH; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 18:25:51 +0100 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E6E1F103088; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 18:25:49 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Borislav Petkov , Robin Murphy Cc: Christoph Hellwig , lkml , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org, Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Marek Szyprowski , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Tom Lendacky Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted" In-Reply-To: <20200319112054.GD13073@zn.tnic> References: <20200317111822.GA15609@zn.tnic> <20200319101657.GB13073@zn.tnic> <20200319102011.GA3617@lst.de> <20200319102834.GC13073@zn.tnic> <8d6d3b6c-7e4e-7d9e-3e19-38f7d4477c72@arm.com> <20200319112054.GD13073@zn.tnic> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 18:25:49 +0100 Message-ID: <878sjw5k9u.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Borislav Petkov writes: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:06:15AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >> Let me add another vote from a native English speaker that "unencrypted" is >> the appropriate term to imply the *absence* of encryption, whereas >> "decrypted" implies the *reversal* of applied encryption. >> >> Naming things is famously hard, for good reason - names are *important* for >> understanding. Just because a decision was already made one way doesn't mean >> that that decision was necessarily right. Churning one area to be >> consistently inaccurate just because it's less work than churning another >> area to be consistently accurate isn't really the best excuse. > > Well, the reason we chose "decrypted" vs something else is so to be as > different from "encrypted" as possible. If we called it "unencrypted" > you'd have stuff like: > > if (force_dma_unencrypted(dev)) > set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)cpu_addr, 1 << page_order); TBH, I don't see how if (force_dma_decrypted(dev)) set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)cpu_addr, 1 << page_order); makes more sense than the above. It's both non-sensical unless there is a big fat comment explaining what this is about. Thanks, tglx