Re: [RFT PATCH v2 00/23] x86: strict separation of startup code

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, 4 May 2025 at 16:04, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> ...
> >
> > So to move this forward I applied the following 7 patches to
> > tip:x86/boot:
> >
> >         x86/boot: Move early_setup_gdt() back into head64.c
> >         x86/boot: Disregard __supported_pte_mask in __startup_64()
> >         x86/sev: Make sev_snp_enabled() a static function
> >         x86/sev: Move instruction decoder into separate source file
> >         x86/linkage: Add SYM_PIC_ALIAS() macro helper to emit symbol aliases
> >         x86/boot: Add a bunch of PIC aliases
> >         x86/boot: Provide __pti_set_user_pgtbl() to startup code
> >
> > Which are I believe independent of SEV testing.
> >
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> > I also merged in pending upstream fixes, including:
> >
> >    8ed12ab1319b ("x86/boot/sev: Support memory acceptance in the EFI stub under SVSM")
> >
> > Which should make tip:x86/boot a good base for your series going
> > forward?
> >
> 
> Yes, that helps a lot, thanks.
> 
> Please also consider the patch
> 
>   x86/sev: Disentangle #VC handling code from startup code
>   11 files changed, 1694 insertions(+), 1643 deletions(-)
> 
> It just moves code around, but it is rather large and is likely to
> cause merge conflicts if it lives out of tree for too long. The +/-
> delta is mostly down to the fact that a new file vc-handle.c is added
> which duplicates most of the #includes of the file that it was split
> off from.

Sure, applied, will push it out after testing. I almost applied it 
yesterday, for these exact reasons.

Thanks,

	Ingo