Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:50:13 -0700 | From | Joao Moreira <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] Kernel FineIBT Support |
| |
> I think it'd be good to get kCFI landed in Clang first (since it is > effectively architecture agnostic), and then get FineIBT landed. But > that doesn't mean we can't be working on the kernel side of things at > the same time.
FWIIW, I'm effectively taking some time away from work for the next 3 months. I'll be around to answer this and that, help reviewing KCFI and maybe send small fixes around, but I'm not planning to land FineIBT in clang anytime before that (specially now that I have a direction to look into the linker approach as per the other thread e-mails). This should give KCFI the time it needs to squeeze in.
> > And just thinking generally, for other architecture-specific stuff, > I do wonder what an arm64 PAC-based CFI might look like. I prefer > things > be hard-coded as kCFI is doing, but it'd be nice to be able to directly > measure performance and size overheads comparing the various methods.
There are other important bullets to this list, I think, like power consumption, robustness and collateral gains (like IBT's side-channel hardening). But yeah, this is probably a good list to keep in mind for us to discuss during plumbers :)
| |