From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I'm a bit ambivalent about whether this is needed or not. Protection Keys never affect kernel mappings. But, they can affect whether the kernel will fault when it touches a user mapping. But, the kernel doesn't touch user mappings without some careful choreography and these accesses don't generally result in oopses. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff -puN arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c~pkeys-30-kernel-error-dumps arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c~pkeys-30-kernel-error-dumps 2015-09-28 11:39:48.695307824 -0700 +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c 2015-09-28 11:39:48.698307960 -0700 @@ -116,6 +116,8 @@ void __show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, i printk(KERN_DEFAULT "DR0: %016lx DR1: %016lx DR2: %016lx\n", d0, d1, d2); printk(KERN_DEFAULT "DR3: %016lx DR6: %016lx DR7: %016lx\n", d3, d6, d7); + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE)) + printk(KERN_DEFAULT "PKRU: %08x\n", read_pkru()); } void release_thread(struct task_struct *dead_task) _ -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>