Re: [RFC PATCH 04/19] memory: Introduce memory_region_can_be_private()

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 02:34:22PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 12:21:46PM -0400, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> > > +bool memory_region_can_be_private(MemoryRegion *mr)
> > > +{
> > > +    return mr->ram_block && mr->ram_block->gmem_fd >= 0;
> > > +}
> > 
> > This is not really MAP_PRIVATE, am I right?  If so, is there still chance
> > we rename it (it seems to be also in the kernel proposal all across..)?
> 
> Yes and yes.
> 
> > I worry it can be very confusing in the future against MAP_PRIVATE /
> > MAP_SHARED otherwise.
> 
> Heh, it's already quite confusing at times.  I'm definitely open to naming that
> doesn't collide with MAP_{PRIVATE,SHARED}, especially if someone can come with a
> naming scheme that includes a succinct way to describe memory that is shared
> between two or more VMs, but is accessible to _only_ those VMs.

Standard solution is a technology specific prefix.
protect_shared, encrypt_shared etc.

-- 
MST