From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [RFC v1 PATCH 00/17] prmem: protected memory References: <20181023213504.28905-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181024230345.GE6311@dastard> From: Igor Stoppa Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:47:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181024230345.GE6311@dastard> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dave Chinner Cc: Mimi Zohar , Kees Cook , Matthew Wilcox , James Morris , Michal Hocko , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, igor.stoppa@huawei.com, Dave Hansen , Jonathan Corbet , Laura Abbott List-ID: 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