linux-hardening - Re: KFENCE: included in x86 defconfig?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7a3d2c33-74ce-45fb-bddc-9eceb6dd928b@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:12:38 +0100
From: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
 Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
 the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: KFENCE: included in x86 defconfig?

On 07/02/2024 20:04, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 07:35:53PM +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> Sorry, I'm sure I understand your suggestion: do you mean not including
>> KFENCE in hardening.config either, but in another one?
>>
>> For the networking tests, we are already merging .config files, e.g. the
>> debug.config one. We are not pushing to have KFENCE in x86 defconfig, it
>> can be elsewhere, and we don't mind merging other .config files if they
>> are maintained.
> 
> Well, depends on where should KFENCE be enabled? Do you want people to
> run their tests with it too, or only the networking tests? If so, then
> hardening.config probably makes sense. 
> 
> Judging by what Documentation/dev-tools/kfence.rst says:
> 
> "KFENCE is designed to be enabled in production kernels, and has near zero
> performance overhead."
> 
> this reads like it should be enabled *everywhere* - not only in some
> hardening config.
> 
> But then again I've never played with it so I don't really know.
> 
> If only the networking tests should enable it, then it should be a local
> .config snippet which is not part of the kernel.
> 
> Makes more sense?

Yes, thank you!

On my side, KFENCE is currently in local .config snippet, not part of
the kernel. If it has near zero performance overhead and can be used in
productions kernel, maybe it can be set elsewhere to be used by more
people? But not everywhere, according to Marco.

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.