On 2021-02-19 15:09, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 2/19/21 12:07 PM, Max Reitz wrote: > > On 13.02.21 22:54, Fam Zheng wrote: > >> On 2021-02-11 15:26, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >>> The null-co driver doesn't zeroize buffer in its default config, > >>> because it is designed for testing and tests want to run fast. > >>> However this confuses security researchers (access to uninit > >>> buffers). > >> > >> I'm a little surprised. > >> > >> Is changing default the only way to fix this? I'm not opposed to > >> changing the default but I'm not convinced this is the easiest way. > >> block/nvme.c also doesn't touch the memory, but defers to the device > >> DMA, why doesn't that confuse the security checker? > > Generally speaking, there is a balance between security and performance. > We try to provide both, but when we can't, my understanding is security > is more important.
Why is hiding the code path behind a non-default more secure? What is not secure now? Fam
