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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 0B120C4332B for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 11:20:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35D22070A for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 11:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="XE6cHInW" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727002AbgCSLUu (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2020 07:20:50 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:36672 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725787AbgCSLUu (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2020 07:20:50 -0400 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2F0A850065FC6DE3D46B17C3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f0a:8500:65fc:6de3:d46b:17c3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id DCF9F1EC085F; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:20:48 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1584616849; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=IlMyw2jWgHGOB/uFSKCAtl/3A39ugp/rgom8OdfSKmc=; b=XE6cHInWOykMJewXB+HpQ43S3ZQrlzEAhf//Ouf5Qimx2SKQA9/gvUhLWvplfK6878RP+v ZqLYTWIZthoqXO6tVrkIxYVE1pcVuGHGY61Fde74hzfcGiK9dOuneS2M+Jk5sfOhuyCzWq w4QHxgKVH2Zv2Ff20bGX9PTvSDxGf0s= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:20:54 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Robin Murphy Cc: Christoph Hellwig , lkml , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , Thomas Gleixner , 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" Message-ID: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8d6d3b6c-7e4e-7d9e-3e19-38f7d4477c72@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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); and I *betcha* people will misread this and maybe even introduce bugs. So I don't think renaming it to "unencrypted" is better. And yes, I'm deliberately putting the language semantics here on a second place because of readability examples like the one above. But ok, since people don't want this, we can leave it as is. It's not like I don't have anything better to do. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette