[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20151204011453.007731D7@viggo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:14:53 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: [PATCH 21/34] x86, pkeys: dump PKRU with other kernel registers
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
I'm a bit ambivalent about whether this is needed or not.
Protection Keys never affect kernel mappings. But, they can
affect whether the kernel will fault when it touches a user
mapping. But, the kernel doesn't touch user mappings without
some careful choreography and these accesses don't generally
result in oopses.
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
---
b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff -puN arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c~pkeys-30-kernel-error-dumps arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c~pkeys-30-kernel-error-dumps 2015-12-03 16:21:27.874773264 -0800
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c 2015-12-03 16:21:27.877773400 -0800
@@ -116,6 +116,8 @@ void __show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, i
printk(KERN_DEFAULT "DR0: %016lx DR1: %016lx DR2: %016lx\n", d0, d1, d2);
printk(KERN_DEFAULT "DR3: %016lx DR6: %016lx DR7: %016lx\n", d3, d6, d7);
+ if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE))
+ printk(KERN_DEFAULT "PKRU: %08x\n", read_pkru());
}
void release_thread(struct task_struct *dead_task)
_
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists