On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:14:10PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > so it either needs to > > explicitly do so, or have an assertion that preemption is indeed > > disabled. > > However, I don't think I understand clearly. Doesn't [get|put]_cpu_ptr() > handle the preempt_disable() for us? It does. > Is it not sufficient to rely on that? It is. > Dave's comment seems to be the opposite where we need to eliminate preempt > disable before calling write_pkrs(). > > FWIW I think I'm mistaken in my response to Dave regarding the > preempt_disable() in pks_update_protection(). Dave's concern is that we're calling with with preemption already disabled so disabling it again is superfluous.
