[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <83e271e1298d603c1105dd0dbea32d67da9cf1fa.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:11:20 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/10 v2 ] x86/fpu: eager switch PKRU state
On Tue, 2018-09-18 at 17:07 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 18/09/2018 16:27, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > Likewise, move this to fpu__clear and outside "if
> > > (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FPU))"?
> >
> > okay. But if there is no FPU we did not save/restore the pkru
> > value. Is
> > this supposed to be an improvement?
>
> Honestly it just seemed "more correct", but now that I think about
> it,
> kernel threads should run with PKRU=0. maybe there's a preexisting
> bug
> that your patch has the occasion to fix.
I don't think it matters what the PKRU state is
for kernel threads, since kernel PTEs should not
be using protection keys anyway.
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists