As Vision-Language Models (VLMs) move into interactive, multi-turn use, new safety risks arise that single-turn or single-modality moderation misses. In Multimodal Multi-Turn (MMT) dialogues, malicious intent can be spread across turns and images, while context-sensitive replies may still advance harmful content. To address this challenge, we present the first systematic definition and study of MMT dialogue safety. Building on this formulation, we introduce the Multimodal Multi-turn Dialogue Safety (MMDS) dataset. We further develop an automated multimodal multi-turn red-teaming framework based on Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to generate unsafe multimodal multi-turn dialogues for MMDS. MMDS contains 4,484 annotated multimodal dialogue samples with fine-grained safety ratings, policy dimension labels, and evidence-based rationales for both users and assistants. Leveraging MMDS, we present LLaVAShield, a powerful tool that jointly detects and assesses risk in user inputs and assistant responses. Across comprehensive experiments, LLaVAShield consistently outperforms strong baselines on MMT content moderation tasks and under dynamic policy configurations, establishing new state-of-the-art results. We will publicly release the dataset and model to support future research.

Although Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have progressed in solving complex problems, their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning often contains harmful content that can persist even when the final responses appear safe. We show that this issue still remains in existing methods which overlook the unique significance of safe reasoning, undermining their trustworthiness and posing potential risks in applications if unsafe reasoning is accessible for and exploited by malicious users. We therefore shift our focus to aligning the safety of reasoning itself in this paper and explore process supervision as the solution. However, simply rewarding safe reasoning proves inadequate due to low rollout diversity and limited training signals. To tackle this challenge, we first delve into the characteristics of safe reasoning and uncover several critical insights that 1) safe reasoning is often consolidated by a few critical steps of safety triggers; 2) compliance cues strongly correlate with unsafe continuations; and 3) corrective interventions reliably steer unsafe trajectories towards safer traces. Motivated by these, we propose Intervened Preference Optimization (IPO), an alignment method that enforces safe reasoning by substituting compliance steps with safety triggers and constructing pairs for preference learning with strong signals. Experiments on jailbreak and adversarial safety benchmarks demonstrate that IPO remarkably improves overall safety regarding both reasoning and responses, outperforming SFT-based and RL-based baselines with a relative reduction of over 30% in harmfulness, while preserving excellent performance across diverse reasoning tasks. The results highlight the importance of explicit alignment for reasoning and provide a practical path to safer LRMs.