linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] mm/kasan: make kasan=on|off work for all three modes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+fCnZewpfDzdo51s6eGPzNohdQ6xHkBwX-Sxo1qty8pBgHZ4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2025 16:07:14 +0100
From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, ryabinin.a.a@...il.com, glider@...gle.com, 
	dvyukov@...gle.com, vincenzo.frascino@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org, elver@...gle.com, sj@...nel.org, 
	lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, snovitoll@...il.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] mm/kasan: make kasan=on|off work for all three modes

On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 8:14 AM Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > I also wonder if we should keep this kasan=off functionality
> > conservative and limit it to x86 and arm64 (since these are the only
> > two tested architectures).
>
> We may not need to do that. I tested on arm64 because it has sw_tags and
> hw_tags. And if x86_64 and arm64 works well with kasan=off in generic
> mode, it should be fine on other architectures. I am a little more
> familiar with operations on x86/arm64 than others.  I can manage to get
> power system to test kasan=off in generic mode, if that is required.
> From my side, I would like to see x86_64/arm64/s390/power to have
> kasan=off because RHEL support these architectures. I need consult people
> to make clear how to change in s390. Will post patch later or ask other
> people to help do that.
>
> While there seems to be no reason we don't let other arch-es have this
> benefit if the underlying code has paved the way, the arch side only needs
> two lines of judgement code. Personal opinion.

OK, but it would be great if the arch maintainers could review and
test the changes.