On 4/22/25 14:26, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > So if that is true (I'm not a x86 uarch expert by any measure), then > pushing back on this series on the basis that it is ugly and intrusive > is not really reasonable. From security pov, I think D-RTM is an > important feature and it deserves to be upstream if it is used widely > in the field.
BTW, I'm not pushing back on it for being intrusive. It's actually not _that_ intrusive. Most of it sits off on the side. It looked like it had a parallel boot entry point, for instance, that is separate from but shouldn't break the normal entry points. BTW. it sounds like folks are pretty unhappy with Intel here on a bunch of levels. It's not my personal hardware design or anything, so please don't pull any punches. If Intel screwed up here and that's why we need 5,000 lines of arguably duplicate functionality, then please say so. You're not going to hurt my feelings.
