On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 01:48:10PM -0700, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 03:22:20PM -0700, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > I agree with you that the abstract name is better than the concrete
> > name, I also feel that we must provide HW extensions. Here is one
> > approach:
> >
> > Cgroup name: cpu_encryption, encryption_slots, or memcrypt (open to
> > suggestions)
> >
> > Control files: slots.{max, current, events}
I don't particularly like the "slots" name, mostly because it could be confused
with KVM's memslots. Maybe encryption_ids.ids.{max, current, events}? I don't
love those names either, but "encryption" and "IDs" are the two obvious
commonalities betwee TDX's encryption key IDs and SEV's encryption address
space IDs.
