Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted" | Date | Thu, 19 Mar 2020 18:25:49 +0100 |
| |
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> 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
| |