Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 15:46:25 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Cc:     hpa@zytor.com, kys@microsoft.com, haiyangz@microsoft.com,
        wei.liu@kernel.org, decui@microsoft.com, luto@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
        kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, lpieralisi@kernel.org,
        robh@kernel.org, kw@linux.com, bhelgaas@google.com, arnd@arndb.de,
        hch@infradead.org, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
        isaku.yamahata@intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        jane.chu@oracle.com, seanjc@google.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        iommu@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 06/14] init: Call mem_encrypt_init() after Hyper-V
 hypercall init is done
Message-ID: <Y3uPQTKDnD+/tv6g@zn.tnic>
References: <1668624097-14884-1-git-send-email-mikelley@microsoft.com>
 <1668624097-14884-7-git-send-email-mikelley@microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1668624097-14884-7-git-send-email-mikelley@microsoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:41:29AM -0800, Michael Kelley wrote:
> Fix this by moving mem_encrypt_init() after late_time_init() and
> related clock initializations. The intervening initializations don't
> do any I/O that requires the swiotlb, so moving mem_encrypt_init()
> slightly later has no impact.

I hope you're right. Our boot ordering is fragile as hell. But
mem_encrypt_init() doesn't do a whole lot of important setup - that has
happened a lot earlier already - so I'm not too worried.

But we'll see what breaks in wider testing.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette