Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] x86/cpu: fix invalid MTRR mask values for SEV or TME

[Paolo Bonzini]

On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 6:21 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 12:08 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 7:29 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I really wanted get_cpu_address_sizes() to be the one and only spot
> > > where c->x86_phys_bits is established.  That way, we don't get a bunch
> > > of code all of the place tweaking it and fighting for who "wins".
> > > We're not there yet, but the approach in this patch moves it back in the
> > > wrong direction because it permits the random tweaking of c->x86_phys_bits.
> >
> > There is unfortunately an important hurdle [...] in that
> > currently the BSP and AP flows are completely different. For the BSP
> > the flow is ->c_early_init(), then get_cpu_address_sizes(), then again
> > ->c_early_init() called by ->c_init(), then ->c_init(). For APs it is
> > get_cpu_address_sizes(), then ->c_early_init() called by ->c_init(),
> > then the rest of ->c_init(). And let's not even look at
> > ->c_identify(). [...] get_cpu_address_sizes()
> > is called too early to see enc_phys_bits on APs. But it was also
> > something that fbf6449f84bf didn't take into account, because it left
> > behind the tentative initialization of x86_*_bits in identify_cpu(),
> > while removing it from early_identify_cpu().  And

Ping, either for applying the original patches or for guidance on how
to proceed.

Paolo