Use consistent name for ACL trigger procedures

[PhilippGackstatter]

The ACL components define a set of procedures that determine whether authentication is required or not.

We currently use "trigger procedure" and "tracked procedure" inconsistently, and it would be good to resolve this. The MASM code primarily uses "trigger" while the Rust APIs more frequently use "tracked". This is also reflected in the slot names, e.g. AuthEcdsaK256KeccakAcl::tracked_procedure_roots_slot.

I don't have a strong preference, but "trigger" seems to be used more often, so maybe "tracked" should be changed to "trigger". Also, "trigger", to me, captures a little better that these "trigger authentication when called".

This affects at least:

• AuthEcdsaK256KeccakAcl::tracked_procedure_roots_slot
• AuthRpoFalcon512Acl::tracked_procedure_roots_slot

Including their documentation and the slot name itself.

cc @partylikeits1983 @mmagician for naming preferences

Context: #2025 (comment)

[mmagician]

Agreed on using "trigger"

[partylikeits1983]

This issue triggered me 😅 , just kidding.

To me tracked_procedure_roots_slot makes a lot of sense. It means these procedure roots we are "tracking", i.e. watching / observing. When / if one of these procedures is called, it gets "triggered", turning on an "alarm" of sorts.

To me this makes sense.

The MASM code primarily uses "trigger" while the Rust APIs more frequently use "tracked".

This is because in Rust we set which procedures to track. In MASM, we are "listening" to see which of the "tracked" procedures get called. Renaming everything to "triggered" is confusing.

Renaming AuthRpoFalcon512Acl::tracked_procedure_roots_slot to AuthRpoFalcon512Acl::triggered_procedure_roots_slot is a bit weird because it seems to imply that the procedure was already called.

[mmagician]

Renaming AuthRpoFalcon512Acl::tracked_procedure_roots_slot to AuthRpoFalcon512Acl::triggered_procedure_roots_slot is a bit weird because it seems to imply that the procedure was already called.

The actual PR suggests the name trigger_procedure_roots_slot, (rather than the past tense "triggered") which should alleviate this particular concern.

[partylikeits1983]

The actual PR suggests the name trigger_procedure_roots_slot, (rather than the past tense "triggered") which should alleviate this particular concern.

I’m still pretty 50/50 on switching everything to “trigger”.

“Trigger” and “track” are not synonyms here -> they describe different concepts, and that’s actually correct.

Track = what we configure / watch: we set a list of procedure roots to track (observe).

Trigger = what happens at runtime: when one of those tracked procedures is called, it triggers authentication.

That distinction matters because the slot name is describing what the slot contains, not the runtime effect.

So renaming AuthRpoFalcon512Acl::tracked_procedure_roots_slot → AuthRpoFalcon512Acl::trigger_procedure_roots_slot makes the slot’s purpose less obvious: it no longer reads like “this is the list we’re watching,” it reads like “these are triggers,” which is vague and (to me) less precise.

If we want consistency without losing meaning, I’d suggest we standardize language like this:

In Rust / storage / config: tracked procedures (tracked_procedure_roots_slot)

In MASM / runtime behavior / docs: calling a tracked procedure triggers authentication

If we do want a single term everywhere, then I think we should pick a descriptive one that matches what the slot stores, e.g. something like protected_procedure_roots_slot, rather than overloading “trigger” to cover both “watched list” and “runtime cause”.