On 08/30/2018 03:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Given the time span you should be close to ground water with your digging > by now.
So, turns out that we start our spurious_fault() code with this check: > if (error_code != (X86_PF_WRITE | X86_PF_PROT) && > error_code != (X86_PF_INSTR | X86_PF_PROT)) > return 0; Which ensures that we only do spurious checking for *very* specific error_code's. That ends up making the X86_PF_PK check inside of spurious_fault_check() dead code _anyway_. It's totally unreachable as far as I can tell. We could add a comment above the error_code check to make it explicit that it excludes pkeys. But, otherwise, I think we can just axe the X86_PF_PK spurious_fault_check().