Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 02:17:36PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: >On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 01:56:10PM +0100, Petr Tesarik wrote: >> I don't want to start a bikeshedding discussion, so if everyone else >> likes this name, let's keep it. But maybe the "_CC" (meaning >> Confidential Comptuing) is not necessary. IIUC it's the same concept as >> set_page_encrypted(), set_page_decrypted(), which does not refer to >> CoCo either. > >Frankly I hate that AMD got their "encrypted" "decrypted" naming baked >into the CC related APIs. > >I'm not at all convinced that they "do not refer to CoCo" in the way >Linux uses them and other arches absolutely make them 100% tied to coco. > >If we are going to bikeshed the name it should be DMA_ATTR_CC_SHARED
On the other hand, the encrypted/decrypted helpers could be always renamed if it makes sense. Better to perhaps have DMA_ATTR_DECRYPTED to have things consistently named now? If someone renames them all in the future, so be it.
