linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] x86/sev: Split off startup code from core code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z_q1RthXIbSXY2Eq@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2025 20:47:34 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
	Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
	Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/11] x86/sev: Split off startup code from core code


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:

> 
> * Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > 
> > Disentangle the SEV core code and the SEV code that is called during
> > early boot. The latter piece will be moved into startup/ in a subsequent
> > patch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/boot/compressed/sev.c |    2 +
> >  arch/x86/coco/sev/Makefile     |   12 +-
> >  arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c       | 1574 ++++----------------
> >  arch/x86/coco/sev/shared.c     |  281 ----
> >  arch/x86/coco/sev/startup.c    | 1395 +++++++++++++++++
> >  5 files changed, 1658 insertions(+), 1606 deletions(-)
> 
> x86-64 allmodconfig build failure:
> 
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/sev.c:263:13: error: implicit declaration of function ‘vmgexit_psc’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> |             ^~~~~~~~~~~
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/sev.c:266:9: error: implicit declaration of function ‘pvalidate_pages’; did you mean ‘pvalidate_4k_page’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> |         pvalidate_4k_page

Ignore that, I have now read the cover letter too, with the patch 
dependency mentioned there - as kindly pointed out by Ard in a private 
mail. :-)

Thanks,

	Ingo