[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240430151256.GA1012249@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 08:12:56 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hardening: Refresh KCFI options, add some more
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:35:03PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 03:16:50PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 03:29:44PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +# Enable Kernel Control Flow Integrity (currently Clang only).
> > > +CONFIG_CFI_CLANG=y
> > > +# CONFIG_CFI_PERMISSIVE is not set
> >
> > Should this be a part of kernel/configs/hardening.config because RISC-V
> > supports it (and 32-bit ARM will soon too)?
>
> Probably yes. I was worried it might be "noisy" for archs that don't
> support it, but frankly if someone is using "make hardening.config" they
> probably want to know about unsupported options. :)
It would be potentially noisy as it is currently written since someone
building with GCC for arm64 or x86_64 could merge hardening.config into
their configuration and they would see CONFIG_CFI_CLANG get enabled by
merge_config.sh but on oldconfig or olddefconfig, it would get flipped
off again because the toolchain dependencies are not met. Might as well
make it architecture agnostic at that point :)
Cheers,
Nathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists