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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,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 18AF6C433E0 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE95D2053B for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:24:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DE95D2053B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:42938 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jgsfi-00043T-7i for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 12:24:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51388) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jgsbR-0008NK-HD; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 12:20:25 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:20327) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jgsbP-0007Ch-PP; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 12:20:24 -0400 IronPort-SDR: qUnwrMbtB3p8IyIQjjXjJSWB0TNMdFNepNDhX11W+WGaTo7wZfsONDyurCyTNNNWpceeu0+GNU xfuho98R19Lw== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jun 2020 09:20:13 -0700 IronPort-SDR: 0STHlrEs9f5V4unbDzgHVn1raqy2xRABHf/PWcn7KiK0SmxBBhUd0TkB/ahsSvElQ21AXW5beg 3r2QJS0aRH/A== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,472,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="471584291" Received: from sjchrist-coffee.jf.intel.com (HELO linux.intel.com) ([10.54.74.152]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2020 09:20:12 -0700 Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:20:12 -0700 From: Sean Christopherson To: David Gibson Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/18] Refactor configuration of guest memory protection Message-ID: <20200604162012.GA30456@linux.intel.com> References: <20200521034304.340040-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <20200529221926.GA3168@linux.intel.com> <20200601091618.GC2743@work-vm> <20200604031129.GB228651@umbus.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200604031129.GB228651@umbus.fritz.box> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=134.134.136.31; envelope-from=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com; helo=mga06.intel.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/04 12:20:13 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = FreeBSD 9.x or newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: pair@us.ibm.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , cohuck@redhat.com, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Eduardo Habkost , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini , mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Richard Henderson Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 01:11:29PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 10:16:18AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * Sean Christopherson (sean.j.christopherson@intel.com) wrote: > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 01:42:46PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > > Note: I'm using the term "guest memory protection" throughout to refer > > > > to mechanisms like this. I don't particular like the term, it's both > > > > long and not really precise. If someone can think of a succinct way > > > > of saying "a means of protecting guest memory from a possibly > > > > compromised hypervisor", I'd be grateful for the suggestion. > > > > > > Many of the features are also going far beyond just protecting memory, so > > > even the "memory" part feels wrong. Maybe something like protected-guest > > > or secure-guest? > > > > > > A little imprecision isn't necessarily a bad thing, e.g. memory-encryption > > > is quite precise, but also wrong once it encompasses anything beyond plain > > > old encryption. > > > > The common thread I think is 'untrusted host' - but I don't know of a > > better way to describe that. > > Hrm.. UntrustedHost? CompromisedHostMitigation? HostTrustMitigation > (that way it has the same abbreviation as hardware transactional > memory for extra confusion)? HypervisorPowerLimitation? GuestWithTrustIssues? Then we can shorten it to InsecureGuest and cause all kinds of confusion :-D. > HostTrustLimitation? "HTL". That's not too bad, actually, I might go > with that unless someone suggests something better. DePrivelegedHost? "DPH". The "de-privelege" phrase seems to be another recurring theme.