lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/11] x86/fpu: set PKRU state for kernel threads
From
Date


> On Oct 18, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-10-12 11:02:18 [-0700], Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 10:54 AM Dave Hansen
>> <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/04/2018 07:05 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>>> The PKRU value is not set for kernel threads because they do not have
>>>> the ->initialized value set. As a result the kernel thread has a random
>>>> PKRU value set which it inherits from the previous task.
>>>> It has been suggested by Paolo Bonzini to set it for kernel threads, too
>>>> because it might be a fix.
>>>> I *think* this is not required because the kernel threads don't copy
>>>> data to/from userland and don't have access to any userspace mm in
>>>> general.
>>>> However there is this use_mm(). If we gain a mm by use_mm() we don't
>>>> have a matching PKRU value because those are per thread. It has been
>>>> suggested to use 0 as the PKRU value but this would bypass PKRU.
>>>>
>>>> Set the initial (default) PKRU value for kernel threads.
>>>
>>> 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?

> Sebastian

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-18 18:49    [W:0.077 / U:2.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site