On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 4:35 AM 'Baoquan He' via kasan-dev
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now everything is ready, set kasan=off can disable kasan for all
> three modes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/kasan-enabled.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kasan-enabled.h b/include/linux/kasan-enabled.h
> index b05ec6329fbe..b33c92cc6bd8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kasan-enabled.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kasan-enabled.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>
> #include <linux/static_key.h>
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KASAN
> extern bool kasan_arg_disabled;
>
> /*
> @@ -12,7 +13,6 @@ extern bool kasan_arg_disabled;
> */
> DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(kasan_flag_enabled);
>
> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_DEFER_KASAN) || defined(CONFIG_KASAN_HW_TAGS)
So do we still need CONFIG_ARCH_DEFER_KASAN? If not, it needs to be removed.
But if we only allow kasan=off for x86/arm64 after all (see my comment
to the cover letter), I believe we need to keep it.
> /*
> * Runtime control for shadow memory initialization or HW_TAGS mode.
> * Uses static key for architectures that need deferred KASAN or HW_TAGS.
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static inline void kasan_enable(void)
> /* For architectures that can enable KASAN early, use compile-time check. */
> static __always_inline bool kasan_enabled(void)
> {
> - return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KASAN);
> + return false;
> }
>
> static inline void kasan_enable(void) {}
> --
> 2.41.0
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "kasan-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kasan-dev/20251128033320.1349620-13-bhe%40redhat.com.
