[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6cb17661-9436-afbf-38eb-58565bba1a56@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 16:42:40 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and
ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR
On 6/10/22 07:35, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> + /* Update CR3 to get LAM active */
> + switch_mm(current->mm, current->mm, current);
Can you at least justify this oddity? When changing an LDT, we use a
dedicated mechanism. Is there a significant benefit to abusing
switch_mm for this?
Also, why can't we enable LAM on a multithreaded process? We can change
an LDT, and the code isn't even particularly complicated.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists