Re: [PATCH] docs: Describe protected virtualization guest setup

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:08:31PM +0200, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: > > > On 4/29/20 3:29 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote: >>> From: Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov(a)linux.ibm.com&gt; >>> >>> Protected virtualization/IBM Secure Execution for Linux protects >>> guest memory and state from the host. >>> >>> Add some basic information about technology and a brief guide >>> on setting up secure guests with libvirt. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov(a)linux.ibm.com&gt; >>> Reviewed-by: Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy(a)linux.ibm.com&gt; >>> Reviewed-by: Paulo de Rezende Pinatti <ppinatti(a)linux.ibm.com&gt; >>> --- >>> docs/kbase.html.in | 3 + >>> docs/kbase/protected_virtualization.rst | 188 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> I'd suggest calling this s390_protected_virt.rst > We can do that. >> >>> diff --git a/docs/kbase.html.in b/docs/kbase.html.in >>> index c586e0f676..05a3239224 100644 >>> --- a/docs/kbase.html.in >>> +++ b/docs/kbase.html.in >>> @@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ >>> <dt><a href="kbase/secureusage.html">Secure usage</a></dt> >>> <dd>Secure usage of the libvirt APIs</dd> >>> + <dt><a href="kbase/protected_virtualization.html">Protected virtualization</a></dt> >> >> "s390 Protected virtualization" as the title >> > The terminology that was used in the KVM upstream code is simply protected > virtualization without a prefix, so I'd avoid creating a new denomination in > libvirt. Putting an "s390" prefix on this isn't inventing new terminology - it is just making it obvious to users what target it applies to.

> Alternatively we could use the (unmodified) marketing name "IBM Secure > Execution for Linux" here and below in the RST and reverse the "also known > as" sentence in the overview. That's even worse IMHO. Just put an s390 prefix on the current text. Regards, Daniel