On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:50:58PM +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
On 4/29/20 5:15 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
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@linux.ibm.com>
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@linux.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@linux.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Paulo de Rezende Pinatti <ppinatti@linux.ibm.com> --- 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.
Daniel & Viktor: Would calling it "Protected virtualization on s390" serve both of you?
Sure. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|