linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: arm64: UBSAN at EL2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <86h61ygmoz.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2025 09:36:44 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Cc: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@...gle.com>,
	kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	will@...nel.org,
	oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
	broonie@...nel.org,
	catalin.marinas@....com,
	tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com,
	bp@...en8.de,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	x86@...nel.org,
	hpa@...or.com,
	elver@...gle.com,
	andreyknvl@...il.com,
	ryabinin.a.a@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	yuzenghui@...wei.com,
	suzuki.poulose@....com,
	joey.gouly@....com,
	masahiroy@...nel.org,
	nathan@...nel.org,
	nicolas.schier@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: arm64: UBSAN at EL2

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:32:23 +0100,
Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:27:07PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> > Many of the sanitizers the kernel supports are disabled when running
> > in EL2 with nvhe/hvhe/proctected modes, some of those are easier
> > (and makes more sense) to integrate than others.
> > Last year, kCFI support was added in [1]
> > 
> > This patchset adds support for UBSAN in EL2.
> 
> This touches both UBSAN and arm64 -- I'm happy to land this via the
> hardening tree, but I expect the arm64 folks would rather take it via
> their tree. What would people like to have happen?

I don't mind either way, but in any case I'd like a stable branch with
that code so that I can merge it if any conflict occurs in -next.

Alternatively, I can take it via the kvmarm tree, and publish a stable
branch for anyone to pick and resolve conflicts ahead of the merge
window.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.