mirror of
https://github.com/Kicksecure/security-misc.git
synced 2025-01-22 10:41:02 -05:00
Reword description of cfi=kcfi
kerenel parameter
This commit is contained in:
parent
fb494c2ba5
commit
1135d34ab3
@ -113,14 +113,14 @@ GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="$GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX debugfs=off"
|
||||
#GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="$GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX quiet"
|
||||
|
||||
## Switch (back) to using kCFI as the default Control Flow Integrity (CFI) implementation.
|
||||
## As of Linux kernel 6.2, FineIBT has been the default implementation.
|
||||
## The Intel-developed IBT (Indirect Branch Tracking) is only used if there support by the CPU.
|
||||
## As of Linux kernel 6.2, FineIBT has been selected to be the default implementation.
|
||||
## The Intel-developed IBT (Indirect Branch Tracking) is only used if there is support by the CPU.
|
||||
## kCFI is software-only while FineIBT is a hybrid software/hardware implementation.
|
||||
## FineIBT may result in performance benefits as it only performs checking at destinations.
|
||||
## FineIBT is weaker against attacks that can write arbitrary executable in memory.
|
||||
## FineIBT may result in some performance benefits as it only performs checking at destinations.
|
||||
## FineIBT is considered weaker against attacks that can write arbitrary executable in memory.
|
||||
## Upstream hardening has given users the ability to disable FineIBT based on requests.
|
||||
## Choice of CFI implementation is dependent on user threat model as there are pros/cons to both.
|
||||
## Do not modify this parameter if unsure of implications.
|
||||
## Choice of CFI implementation is highly dependent on user threat model as there are pros/cons to both.
|
||||
## Do not modify from default if unsure of implications.
|
||||
##
|
||||
## https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221027092842.699804264@infradead.org/
|
||||
## https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202210010918.4918F847C4@keescook/T/#u
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user