Without wanting to blow up your RFC with another one - I discussed this with various people, including Bret when he was still at Project Mu, and there was a consensus among them that integrating the whole CPU arch code right into DxeCore would be a good idea. This would especially remove the hack that queues permission applications till CpuDxe loads for good, rather than requiring pro-active consumption of a library that proves this "fallback". For most of the architectural protocols, especially SecurityStubDxe, I never got the gist why you would want them to be separate from DxeCore. Obviously there should be a level of customizability for IBVs and OEMs, though that can be done statically-linked as well.<br /><br />REF:&nbsp;<a href="https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3223">https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3223</a><br /><br />What's your take on this?<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Marvin