I've been using Linux for a fair while for desktop/end device usage, and through that time, I've considered various security measures on my system.
As a part of that, my next task is choosing a decent antivirus (well, at least considering it). Seemingly, the only antivirus offered by my distro of choice (Gentoo) is ClamAV. I've seen mixed results, whether it be it being useful, not so useful, or even just a massive waste of time.
I already do a fair bit in terms of security, like:
Apparmor
Chkrootkit+rkhunter on cron jobs
Firewalld
Hardened kernel/coreutils via USE flag mix.
Verify-sig/provenance USE flags
Full disk encryption
Librewolf web browser
Keepassxc
And a few other less meaningful/more subtle measures I've taken. No secure boot, though, and I doubt that it'll be possible for me to integrate it into my system due to a couple of constraints.
I do quite a bit, including locally hosting services for other devices, gaming (system wine installation, etc), web browsing, and more. Nothing crazy, but I do interact with a pretty wide variety of Windows and Linux programs.
In terms of setup time, I already got it working and configured, so it's not like I'll have difficulty in deciding to keep it. I also doubt I'd have difficulty removing it as well. Pretty much just trying to consider whether it's worth keeping around in terms of efficacy and preformance costs.
Considering what I'm already doing, and my use case, is it really worth using ClamAV? Or, even if the utility provided is negligible, will it significantly reduce system preformance to have features like `clamonacc` activated?
Additionally, if I decide against ClamAV, should I be looking at alternative antivirus programs? Or is antivirus not really necessary for a reasonably secure setup?