Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11 v3] x86: load FPU registers on return to userland
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
In-Reply-To: <8ea44ae2bb4844df812ea4c6cb0c00ef12708c51.camel@surriel.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:50:51 -0700
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        =?utf-8?Q?Radim_Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1DDD1BB3-A306-4366-A941-4F7321672C6B@amacapital.net>
References: <20181004140547.13014-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <8ea44ae2bb4844df812ea4c6cb0c00ef12708c51.camel@surriel.com>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> On Oct 4, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 16:05 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 
> 
>> In v3 I dropped that decouple idea. I also learned that the wrpkru
>> instruction is not privileged and so caching it in kernel does not
>> work.
> 
> Wait, so any thread can bypass its memory protection
> keys, even if there is a seccomp filter preventing
> it from calling the PKRU syscalls?
> 
> Is that intended?
> 
> Is that simply a hardware limitation, or something
> where we can set a flag somewhere to force tasks to
> go through the kernel?
> 
> 

Hardware limitation.