[MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 2/2] more sampling fun 2

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:16:46PM +0100, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> speck for Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 03:59:06PM +0100, speck for Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> > I'd expect to call this one "SRBDS" a year from now. I find
> >> > "srb_sampling" to be confusing and hard to remember because it renames
> >> > something that already has an industry standard name.
> >> 
> >> srb_sampling *is* srbds - just more readable.
> >> 
> >> We are not giving any new names to the vulns - we're simply making our command
> >> line options more readable so that when you have to type them, you either have
> >> to remember "srbds" - in that order - or "srb sampling".
> >> 
> >> Latter is easier for me.
> >
> > But you're leaving out the "data" portion of the acronym/name.
> >
> > Either call it "srbds" or "special_register_buffer_data_sampling" -- but
> > *please* don't give it a new name.  It will just create more confusion.
> >
> > If you can't remember what srbds stands for, that's why we have
> > documentation and search engines.
> 
> Our command line options for this mess are inconsistent already, but for
> most of them we have actual acronyms used, so lets just go with srbds.

Sounds like shruberryds.  I wonder if Google will autocorrect 'srbds' to
shrubbery or shrubs.
> 
> Having a half correct, but more elaborate one does not really help. If
> at all you want to come up with a snarky one like:
> 
>    super_random_but_data_stolen = [hell_no, shrug, nsa]

Nah,

the_knights_of_ni=?

:-)

How about

rng_secure=on,off

Since that is all folks will care about.

And 
mitigation=off will tweak it to off too.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
>