From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] x86/fpu: set PKRU state for kernel threads Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:47:47 -0700 Message-ID: <0465d170-67c4-5bae-c4ef-de63c09e4ead@linux.intel.com> References: <20181004140547.13014-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20181004140547.13014-6-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <39e0a55f-4920-cfde-9bef-09c51109d211@linux.intel.com> <20181018162644.qqjkzoqn2fleyi2b@linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Andy Lutomirski , LKML , X86 ML , Paolo Bonzini , Radim Krcmar , kvm list , "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Rik van Riel To: Andy Lutomirski , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org 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.