It's quite annoying when people use the term "secure" to refer to Digital Restriction Management mechanisms. A "secure buffer" is not a good way to describe a buffer that cannot be read by the user. "Protected buffer" is slightly better but still a bit misleading.

I've suggested "user-hostile buffer", but not sure how other people will like it :P

@lanodan Ah, I like "restricted" in this context, it makes it clear that some operations are forbidden.

@lanodan Just realized it's actually part of the "DRM" acronym I've written right above, lol

@lanodan @emersion I was thinking just "restricted", but your version is more precise

@michcio @emersion Well the issue is that mere restricted buffer could be just using mprotect.

@emersion Spotify calls it "secure media playback" and I don't think you could get them to say "user hostile media playback" lmao

I think at least "DRM" has a negative connotation which is good

@robots The context is a new Wayland protocol extension, so we get to choose the wording (even if I'd NACK the change in the first place)

@emersion arbitrarely permitted reading buffer

because it's not up to the user to decide when to read it

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!