Hi Marco, Thank you for your reply!
On 07/02/2024 19:05, Marco Elver wrote: > [Cc'ing a bunch more people to get input] > > Hi Matt, > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 17:16, Matthieu Baerts <matt...@kernel.org> wrote: > [...] >> When talking to Jakub about the kernel config used by the new CI for the >> net tree [1], Jakub suggested [2] to check if KFENCE could not be >> enabled by default for x86 architecture. >> >> As KFENCE maintainers, what do you think about that? Do you see some >> blocking points? Do you plan to add it in x86_64_defconfig? > > We have no concrete plans to add it to x86 defconfig. I don't think > there'd be anything wrong with that from a technical point of view, > but I think defconfig should remain relatively minimal. > > I guess different groups of people will disagree here: as kernel > maintainers, it'd be a good thing because we get more coverage and > higher probability of catching memory-safety bugs; as a user, I think > having defconfig enable KFENCE seems unintuitive. Thank you for having shared your point of view. I agree with you, the x86_64_defconfig is probably not the right place. > I think this would belong into some "hardening" config - while KFENCE > is not a mitigation (due to sampling) it has the performance > characteristics of unintrusive hardening techniques, so I think it > would be a good fit. I think that'd be > "kernel/configs/hardening.config". > > Preferences? I didn't think about the hardening kconfig. It seems to make sense! I will wait for people from the Linux Hardening ML to comment if that's OK :) Cheers, Matt -- Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
