[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0465d170-67c4-5bae-c4ef-de63c09e4ead@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:47:47 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] x86/fpu: set PKRU state for kernel threads
On 10/18/2018 09:48 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> We might want to do this for cleanliness reasons... Maybe.
>>>>
>>>> But this *should* have no practical effects. Kernel threads have no
>>>> real 'mm' and no user pages. They should not have do access to user
>>>> mappings. Protection keys *only* apply to user mappings. Thus,
>>>> logically, they should never be affected by PKRU values.
>>>>
>>>> So I'm kinda missing the point of the patch.
>>> use_mm().
>> So. I would drop that patch from queue. Anyone feels different about it?
>>
> I think we *do* want the patch. It’s a bugfix for use_mm users, right?
Yes, we need it. I was being dense and Andy kindly reminded me of the
point of the patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists