Re: [PATCH] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted"

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2020-03-17 at 14:24 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/17/20 2:06 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:35:12PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On 3/17/20 4:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > Back then when the whole SME machinery started getting mainlined, it
> > > > was agreed that for simplicity, clarity and sanity's sake, the terms
> > > > denoting encrypted and not-encrypted memory should be "encrypted" and
> > > > "decrypted". And the majority of the code sticks to that convention
> > > > except those two. So rename them.
> > > Don't "unencrypted" and "decrypted" mean different things?
> > > 
> > > Unencrypted to me means "encryption was never used for this data".
> > > 
> > > Decrypted means "this was/is encrypted but here is a plaintext copy".
> > Maybe but linguistical semantics is not the point here.
> > 
> > The idea is to represent a "binary" concept of memory being encrypted
> > or memory being not encrypted. And at the time we decided to use
> > "encrypted" and "decrypted" for those two things.
> 
> Yeah, agreed.  We're basically trying to name "!encrypted".
> 
> > Do you see the need to differentiate a third "state", so to speak, of
> > memory which was never encrypted?
> 
> No, there are just two states.  I just think the "!encrypted" case
> should not be called "decrypted".

Nor do I, it's completely misleading.