* stable: KASan for ARM @ 2021-03-07 15:00 ` Michał Mirosław 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Michał Mirosław @ 2021-03-07 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg Kroah-Hartman; +Cc: Linus Walleij, stable, linux-arm-kernel Dear Greg, Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. Best Regards Michał Mirosław _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* stable: KASan for ARM @ 2021-03-07 15:00 ` Michał Mirosław 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Michał Mirosław @ 2021-03-07 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg Kroah-Hartman; +Cc: Linus Walleij, stable, linux-arm-kernel Dear Greg, Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. Best Regards Michał Mirosław ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM 2021-03-07 15:00 ` Michał Mirosław @ 2021-03-07 15:20 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2021-03-07 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michał Mirosław; +Cc: Linus Walleij, stable, linux-arm-kernel On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > Dear Greg, > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. Looks like a new feature to me, right? How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it does not meet the stable kernel rules. And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why does 5.10 matter here? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM @ 2021-03-07 15:20 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2021-03-07 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michał Mirosław; +Cc: Linus Walleij, stable, linux-arm-kernel On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > Dear Greg, > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. Looks like a new feature to me, right? How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it does not meet the stable kernel rules. And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why does 5.10 matter here? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM 2021-03-07 15:20 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2021-03-07 16:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2021-03-07 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Russell King Cc: Michał Mirosław, Linus Walleij, stable, Linux ARM (+ Russell) On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > > Dear Greg, > > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. > > Looks like a new feature to me, right? > > How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a > patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it > does not meet the stable kernel rules. > > And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why > does 5.10 matter here? > The KASan support was rather tricky to get right, so I don't think this is suitable for stable. The range 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 is definitely not complete (we'd need at least e9a2f8b599d0bc22a1b13e69527246ac39c697b4 and 10fce53c0ef8f6e79115c3d9e0d7ea1338c3fa37 as well), and the intrusive nature of those changes means they are definitely not appropriate as stable backports. -- Ard. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM @ 2021-03-07 16:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2021-03-07 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Russell King Cc: Michał Mirosław, Linus Walleij, stable, Linux ARM (+ Russell) On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > > Dear Greg, > > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. > > Looks like a new feature to me, right? > > How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a > patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it > does not meet the stable kernel rules. > > And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why > does 5.10 matter here? > The KASan support was rather tricky to get right, so I don't think this is suitable for stable. The range 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 is definitely not complete (we'd need at least e9a2f8b599d0bc22a1b13e69527246ac39c697b4 and 10fce53c0ef8f6e79115c3d9e0d7ea1338c3fa37 as well), and the intrusive nature of those changes means they are definitely not appropriate as stable backports. -- Ard. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM 2021-03-07 16:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel @ 2021-03-07 22:48 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin @ 2021-03-07 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Michał Mirosław, Linus Walleij, stable, Linux ARM On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 05:10:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > (+ Russell) > > On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > > > Dear Greg, > > > > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. > > > > Looks like a new feature to me, right? > > > > How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a > > patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it > > does not meet the stable kernel rules. > > > > And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why > > does 5.10 matter here? > > > > The KASan support was rather tricky to get right, so I don't think > this is suitable for stable. The range 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 is > definitely not complete (we'd need at least > e9a2f8b599d0bc22a1b13e69527246ac39c697b4 and > 10fce53c0ef8f6e79115c3d9e0d7ea1338c3fa37 as well), and the intrusive > nature of those changes means they are definitely not appropriate as > stable backports. I agree - it took quite a while for KASan to settle down - and our last issue with KASan causing a panic in the Kprobes codes was in February. So, I think at the very least, requesting to backport this so soon is premature. That fix is not included even in what you mention above. Maybe that fix has already been picked up in stable, I don't know. So, we know that there's probably more to getting kprobes working on 32-bit ARM than even you've mentioned above. Is it worth backporting such a major feature to stable kernels? Or would it be better to backport the fixes found by KASan from later kernels? My feeling is the latter is the better all round approach. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last! _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM @ 2021-03-07 22:48 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin @ 2021-03-07 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Michał Mirosław, Linus Walleij, stable, Linux ARM On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 05:10:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > (+ Russell) > > On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > > > Dear Greg, > > > > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. > > > > Looks like a new feature to me, right? > > > > How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a > > patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it > > does not meet the stable kernel rules. > > > > And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why > > does 5.10 matter here? > > > > The KASan support was rather tricky to get right, so I don't think > this is suitable for stable. The range 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 is > definitely not complete (we'd need at least > e9a2f8b599d0bc22a1b13e69527246ac39c697b4 and > 10fce53c0ef8f6e79115c3d9e0d7ea1338c3fa37 as well), and the intrusive > nature of those changes means they are definitely not appropriate as > stable backports. I agree - it took quite a while for KASan to settle down - and our last issue with KASan causing a panic in the Kprobes codes was in February. So, I think at the very least, requesting to backport this so soon is premature. That fix is not included even in what you mention above. Maybe that fix has already been picked up in stable, I don't know. So, we know that there's probably more to getting kprobes working on 32-bit ARM than even you've mentioned above. Is it worth backporting such a major feature to stable kernels? Or would it be better to backport the fixes found by KASan from later kernels? My feeling is the latter is the better all round approach. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM 2021-03-07 22:48 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin @ 2021-03-07 23:34 ` Michał Mirosław -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Michał Mirosław @ 2021-03-07 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin, Ard Biesheuvel, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus Walleij Cc: stable, Linux ARM On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 10:48:54PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 05:10:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > (+ Russell) > > > > On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > > > > Dear Greg, > > > > > > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > > > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > > > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > > > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. > > > > > > Looks like a new feature to me, right? > > > > > > How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a > > > patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it > > > does not meet the stable kernel rules. > > > > > > And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why > > > does 5.10 matter here? > > > > The KASan support was rather tricky to get right, so I don't think > > this is suitable for stable. The range 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 is > > definitely not complete (we'd need at least > > e9a2f8b599d0bc22a1b13e69527246ac39c697b4 and > > 10fce53c0ef8f6e79115c3d9e0d7ea1338c3fa37 as well), and the intrusive > > nature of those changes means they are definitely not appropriate as > > stable backports. > > I agree - it took quite a while for KASan to settle down - and our last > issue with KASan causing a panic in the Kprobes codes was in February. > So, I think at the very least, requesting to backport this so soon is > premature. That fix is not included even in what you mention above. > Maybe that fix has already been picked up in stable, I don't know. > > So, we know that there's probably more to getting kprobes working on > 32-bit ARM than even you've mentioned above. > > Is it worth backporting such a major feature to stable kernels? Or > would it be better to backport the fixes found by KASan from later > kernels? My feeling is the latter is the better all round approach. I guessed that KASan support code does not pose problems with CONFIG_KASAN=n. If it does, then I understand that this is definitely a deal-breaker for stable, and I agree there is no point in further discussion. But, if in disabled state KASan patches meet the stable requirements, then maybe it is worth the trouble to help those who have to stay on a LTS kernel? Regarding testing KASan for ARM: I'm currently running it on a SAMA5D2 board. The 4 patches on top of v5.10.21 did allow the device to boot up (after fixing a false-positive in __clear_user_memset()). I also applied the three patches Ard mentioned just to be closer to upstream and the board still went up. Kernel gets big and slow after enabling KASan, but I think this is expected. Best Regards Michał Mirosław _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM @ 2021-03-07 23:34 ` Michał Mirosław 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Michał Mirosław @ 2021-03-07 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin, Ard Biesheuvel, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus Walleij Cc: stable, Linux ARM On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 10:48:54PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 05:10:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > (+ Russell) > > > > On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > > > > Dear Greg, > > > > > > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > > > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > > > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > > > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. > > > > > > Looks like a new feature to me, right? > > > > > > How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a > > > patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it > > > does not meet the stable kernel rules. > > > > > > And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why > > > does 5.10 matter here? > > > > The KASan support was rather tricky to get right, so I don't think > > this is suitable for stable. The range 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 is > > definitely not complete (we'd need at least > > e9a2f8b599d0bc22a1b13e69527246ac39c697b4 and > > 10fce53c0ef8f6e79115c3d9e0d7ea1338c3fa37 as well), and the intrusive > > nature of those changes means they are definitely not appropriate as > > stable backports. > > I agree - it took quite a while for KASan to settle down - and our last > issue with KASan causing a panic in the Kprobes codes was in February. > So, I think at the very least, requesting to backport this so soon is > premature. That fix is not included even in what you mention above. > Maybe that fix has already been picked up in stable, I don't know. > > So, we know that there's probably more to getting kprobes working on > 32-bit ARM than even you've mentioned above. > > Is it worth backporting such a major feature to stable kernels? Or > would it be better to backport the fixes found by KASan from later > kernels? My feeling is the latter is the better all round approach. I guessed that KASan support code does not pose problems with CONFIG_KASAN=n. If it does, then I understand that this is definitely a deal-breaker for stable, and I agree there is no point in further discussion. But, if in disabled state KASan patches meet the stable requirements, then maybe it is worth the trouble to help those who have to stay on a LTS kernel? Regarding testing KASan for ARM: I'm currently running it on a SAMA5D2 board. The 4 patches on top of v5.10.21 did allow the device to boot up (after fixing a false-positive in __clear_user_memset()). I also applied the three patches Ard mentioned just to be closer to upstream and the board still went up. Kernel gets big and slow after enabling KASan, but I think this is expected. Best Regards Michał Mirosław ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM 2021-03-07 23:34 ` Michał Mirosław @ 2021-03-08 0:42 ` Sasha Levin -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Sasha Levin @ 2021-03-08 0:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michał Mirosław Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux admin, Ard Biesheuvel, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus Walleij, stable, Linux ARM On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:34:39AM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: >On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 10:48:54PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 05:10:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> > (+ Russell) >> > >> > On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: >> > > > Dear Greg, >> > > > >> > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those >> > > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are >> > > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in >> > > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. >> > > >> > > Looks like a new feature to me, right? >> > > >> > > How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a >> > > patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it >> > > does not meet the stable kernel rules. >> > > >> > > And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why >> > > does 5.10 matter here? >> > >> > The KASan support was rather tricky to get right, so I don't think >> > this is suitable for stable. The range 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 is >> > definitely not complete (we'd need at least >> > e9a2f8b599d0bc22a1b13e69527246ac39c697b4 and >> > 10fce53c0ef8f6e79115c3d9e0d7ea1338c3fa37 as well), and the intrusive >> > nature of those changes means they are definitely not appropriate as >> > stable backports. >> >> I agree - it took quite a while for KASan to settle down - and our last >> issue with KASan causing a panic in the Kprobes codes was in February. >> So, I think at the very least, requesting to backport this so soon is >> premature. That fix is not included even in what you mention above. >> Maybe that fix has already been picked up in stable, I don't know. >> >> So, we know that there's probably more to getting kprobes working on >> 32-bit ARM than even you've mentioned above. >> >> Is it worth backporting such a major feature to stable kernels? Or >> would it be better to backport the fixes found by KASan from later >> kernels? My feeling is the latter is the better all round approach. > >I guessed that KASan support code does not pose problems with >CONFIG_KASAN=n. If it does, then I understand that this is definitely >a deal-breaker for stable, and I agree there is no point in further >discussion. But, if in disabled state KASan patches meet the stable >requirements, then maybe it is worth the trouble to help those who >have to stay on a LTS kernel? Following this logic nearly every upstream feature can be backported to stable. You can't have both worlds; you can't stay on an older "stable" tree while still benefiting from new features that land upstream. -- Thanks, Sasha _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM @ 2021-03-08 0:42 ` Sasha Levin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Sasha Levin @ 2021-03-08 0:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michał Mirosław Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux admin, Ard Biesheuvel, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus Walleij, stable, Linux ARM On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:34:39AM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: >On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 10:48:54PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 05:10:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> > (+ Russell) >> > >> > On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: >> > > > Dear Greg, >> > > > >> > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those >> > > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are >> > > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in >> > > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. >> > > >> > > Looks like a new feature to me, right? >> > > >> > > How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a >> > > patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it >> > > does not meet the stable kernel rules. >> > > >> > > And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why >> > > does 5.10 matter here? >> > >> > The KASan support was rather tricky to get right, so I don't think >> > this is suitable for stable. The range 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 is >> > definitely not complete (we'd need at least >> > e9a2f8b599d0bc22a1b13e69527246ac39c697b4 and >> > 10fce53c0ef8f6e79115c3d9e0d7ea1338c3fa37 as well), and the intrusive >> > nature of those changes means they are definitely not appropriate as >> > stable backports. >> >> I agree - it took quite a while for KASan to settle down - and our last >> issue with KASan causing a panic in the Kprobes codes was in February. >> So, I think at the very least, requesting to backport this so soon is >> premature. That fix is not included even in what you mention above. >> Maybe that fix has already been picked up in stable, I don't know. >> >> So, we know that there's probably more to getting kprobes working on >> 32-bit ARM than even you've mentioned above. >> >> Is it worth backporting such a major feature to stable kernels? Or >> would it be better to backport the fixes found by KASan from later >> kernels? My feeling is the latter is the better all round approach. > >I guessed that KASan support code does not pose problems with >CONFIG_KASAN=n. If it does, then I understand that this is definitely >a deal-breaker for stable, and I agree there is no point in further >discussion. But, if in disabled state KASan patches meet the stable >requirements, then maybe it is worth the trouble to help those who >have to stay on a LTS kernel? Following this logic nearly every upstream feature can be backported to stable. You can't have both worlds; you can't stay on an older "stable" tree while still benefiting from new features that land upstream. -- Thanks, Sasha ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM 2021-03-07 23:34 ` Michał Mirosław @ 2021-03-08 6:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2021-03-08 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michał Mirosław Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux admin, Ard Biesheuvel, Linus Walleij, stable, Linux ARM On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:34:39AM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 10:48:54PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 05:10:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > (+ Russell) > > > > > > On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > > > > > Dear Greg, > > > > > > > > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > > > > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > > > > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > > > > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. > > > > > > > > Looks like a new feature to me, right? > > > > > > > > How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a > > > > patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it > > > > does not meet the stable kernel rules. > > > > > > > > And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why > > > > does 5.10 matter here? > > > > > > The KASan support was rather tricky to get right, so I don't think > > > this is suitable for stable. The range 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 is > > > definitely not complete (we'd need at least > > > e9a2f8b599d0bc22a1b13e69527246ac39c697b4 and > > > 10fce53c0ef8f6e79115c3d9e0d7ea1338c3fa37 as well), and the intrusive > > > nature of those changes means they are definitely not appropriate as > > > stable backports. > > > > I agree - it took quite a while for KASan to settle down - and our last > > issue with KASan causing a panic in the Kprobes codes was in February. > > So, I think at the very least, requesting to backport this so soon is > > premature. That fix is not included even in what you mention above. > > Maybe that fix has already been picked up in stable, I don't know. > > > > So, we know that there's probably more to getting kprobes working on > > 32-bit ARM than even you've mentioned above. > > > > Is it worth backporting such a major feature to stable kernels? Or > > would it be better to backport the fixes found by KASan from later > > kernels? My feeling is the latter is the better all round approach. > > I guessed that KASan support code does not pose problems with > CONFIG_KASAN=n. If it does, then I understand that this is definitely > a deal-breaker for stable, and I agree there is no point in further > discussion. But, if in disabled state KASan patches meet the stable > requirements, then maybe it is worth the trouble to help those who > have to stay on a LTS kernel? Please read: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html for what types of patches are acceptable for stable kernels. These do not seem to fit into those categories at all. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM @ 2021-03-08 6:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2021-03-08 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michał Mirosław Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux admin, Ard Biesheuvel, Linus Walleij, stable, Linux ARM On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 12:34:39AM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 10:48:54PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 05:10:43PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > (+ Russell) > > > > > > On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote: > > > > > Dear Greg, > > > > > > > > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > > > > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > > > > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > > > > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. > > > > > > > > Looks like a new feature to me, right? > > > > > > > > How many patches, and have you tested them? If so, submit them as a > > > > patch series and we can review them, but if this is a new feature, it > > > > does not meet the stable kernel rules. > > > > > > > > And why not just use 5.11 or newer for discovering kernel bugs? Why > > > > does 5.10 matter here? > > > > > > The KASan support was rather tricky to get right, so I don't think > > > this is suitable for stable. The range 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 is > > > definitely not complete (we'd need at least > > > e9a2f8b599d0bc22a1b13e69527246ac39c697b4 and > > > 10fce53c0ef8f6e79115c3d9e0d7ea1338c3fa37 as well), and the intrusive > > > nature of those changes means they are definitely not appropriate as > > > stable backports. > > > > I agree - it took quite a while for KASan to settle down - and our last > > issue with KASan causing a panic in the Kprobes codes was in February. > > So, I think at the very least, requesting to backport this so soon is > > premature. That fix is not included even in what you mention above. > > Maybe that fix has already been picked up in stable, I don't know. > > > > So, we know that there's probably more to getting kprobes working on > > 32-bit ARM than even you've mentioned above. > > > > Is it worth backporting such a major feature to stable kernels? Or > > would it be better to backport the fixes found by KASan from later > > kernels? My feeling is the latter is the better all round approach. > > I guessed that KASan support code does not pose problems with > CONFIG_KASAN=n. If it does, then I understand that this is definitely > a deal-breaker for stable, and I agree there is no point in further > discussion. But, if in disabled state KASan patches meet the stable > requirements, then maybe it is worth the trouble to help those who > have to stay on a LTS kernel? Please read: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html for what types of patches are acceptable for stable kernels. These do not seem to fit into those categories at all. thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM 2021-03-07 15:00 ` Michał Mirosław @ 2021-03-08 9:44 ` Linus Walleij -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Linus Walleij @ 2021-03-08 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michał Mirosław; +Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable, Linux ARM On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 4:00 PM Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl> wrote: > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. It's a development feature not supposed to be enabled in production/product kernels and following the stable kernel rules I don't see what this code would achieve in stable. IMO it's a better idea to provide a branch with KASan for each stable branch that developers can pull in if they want to enable it and use it for testing. Are you interested in setting up such branches for others to use? I think it would be helpful. Also the work shouldn't be very hard after bring-up and it ends when the last stable pre-v5.11 kernel is EOL:ed. Yours, Linus Walleij _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM @ 2021-03-08 9:44 ` Linus Walleij 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Linus Walleij @ 2021-03-08 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michał Mirosław; +Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable, Linux ARM On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 4:00 PM Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl> wrote: > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. It's a development feature not supposed to be enabled in production/product kernels and following the stable kernel rules I don't see what this code would achieve in stable. IMO it's a better idea to provide a branch with KASan for each stable branch that developers can pull in if they want to enable it and use it for testing. Are you interested in setting up such branches for others to use? I think it would be helpful. Also the work shouldn't be very hard after bring-up and it ends when the last stable pre-v5.11 kernel is EOL:ed. Yours, Linus Walleij ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM 2021-03-08 9:44 ` Linus Walleij @ 2021-03-08 22:51 ` Michał Mirosław -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Michał Mirosław @ 2021-03-08 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Walleij; +Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable, Linux ARM On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 10:44:03AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 4:00 PM Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl> wrote: > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. > > It's a development feature not supposed to be enabled in production/product > kernels and following the stable kernel rules I don't see what this > code would achieve in stable. > > IMO it's a better idea to provide a branch with KASan for each stable branch > that developers can pull in if they want to enable it and use it for testing. > > Are you interested in setting up such branches for others to use? > I think it would be helpful. Also the work shouldn't be very hard after bring-up > and it ends when the last stable pre-v5.11 kernel is EOL:ed. This is just a few patches, so I've posted the branch at my git repo. Please clone after fetching stable/linux-5.10.x from kernel.org: git remote add rere git://rere.qmqm.pl/linux git fetch rere refs/heads/kasan-for-arm-510 Best Regards, Michał Mirosław _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: stable: KASan for ARM @ 2021-03-08 22:51 ` Michał Mirosław 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Michał Mirosław @ 2021-03-08 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Walleij; +Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable, Linux ARM On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 10:44:03AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 4:00 PM Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl> wrote: > > > Would you consider KASan for ARM patches for LTS (5.10) kernel? Those > > are 7a1be318f579..421015713b30 if I understand correctly. They are > > not normal stable material, but I think they will help tremendously in > > discovering kernel bugs on 32-bit ARMs. > > It's a development feature not supposed to be enabled in production/product > kernels and following the stable kernel rules I don't see what this > code would achieve in stable. > > IMO it's a better idea to provide a branch with KASan for each stable branch > that developers can pull in if they want to enable it and use it for testing. > > Are you interested in setting up such branches for others to use? > I think it would be helpful. Also the work shouldn't be very hard after bring-up > and it ends when the last stable pre-v5.11 kernel is EOL:ed. This is just a few patches, so I've posted the branch at my git repo. Please clone after fetching stable/linux-5.10.x from kernel.org: git remote add rere git://rere.qmqm.pl/linux git fetch rere refs/heads/kasan-for-arm-510 Best Regards, Michał Mirosław ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-03-08 22:53 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-03-07 15:00 stable: KASan for ARM Michał Mirosław 2021-03-07 15:00 ` Michał Mirosław 2021-03-07 15:20 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2021-03-07 15:20 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2021-03-07 16:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-03-07 16:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel 2021-03-07 22:48 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin 2021-03-07 22:48 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin 2021-03-07 23:34 ` Michał Mirosław 2021-03-07 23:34 ` Michał Mirosław 2021-03-08 0:42 ` Sasha Levin 2021-03-08 0:42 ` Sasha Levin 2021-03-08 6:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2021-03-08 6:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2021-03-08 9:44 ` Linus Walleij 2021-03-08 9:44 ` Linus Walleij 2021-03-08 22:51 ` Michał Mirosław 2021-03-08 22:51 ` Michał Mirosław
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.