linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] randomize_kstack: Maintain kstack

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: <4557fd56-0640-4218-a9ad-0ae3d7c37d45@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 08:53:33 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
 Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>,
 Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
 Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
 Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
 David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] randomize_kstack: Maintain kstack_offset per task

On 1/19/26 08:51, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> Since this doesn't fix any known functional issues, if it were me, I'd
>> leave stable@ alone. It isn't clear that this is stable material.
> I listed 2 issues in the commit log; I agree that issue 1 falls into the
> category of "don't really care", but issue 2 means that kstack randomization is
> currently trivial to defeat. That's the reason I thought it would valuable in
> stable.
> 
> But if you're saying don't bother and others agree, then this whole patch can be
> dropped; this is just intended to be the backportable fix. Patch 3 reimplements
> this entirely for upstream.
> 
> I'll wait and see if others have opinions if that's ok?

Sure. I don't feel that strongly about it.