From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54C5D248BAE; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:54:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736938495; cv=none; b=Cz7rYZQ+Lyxk+XKkS/Mvrftqbx7np243WEHkdQ6vOX0r17BpWXEBb+QMRp6WoQfdLIeKB+hwqo7hbIOLfeNWUBFx9WrgqasJS+IUB8eOTMsiuJaUBmRGegW8Jl6nG3P9yqE8zILrybuZjUeC8ZBCDgUGVUV5tRWosOTNrp7EA/s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736938495; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hPXS6UZFDm2T5y/wOOAWlgxcGqPJTG1H5BJKZ9+76Tw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=rbOT2nxbH0WDP1JUuO3t4qMIVHnEu98us9MOTow91xvTcSx6X/0McjPZbyw8EQn/YV+Ikk9UaErqgdiDe5UI7+uPWISWdJY0/U+o+WACYLzHoAUVSCFDkqm8yXxY6AuRiHKwyQxBNwm4X28/0Kvssd/rbERiFmbMtzLSjs0njsI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=Im2xyVxm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="Im2xyVxm" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6AE5C4CEDF; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:54:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1736938495; bh=hPXS6UZFDm2T5y/wOOAWlgxcGqPJTG1H5BJKZ9+76Tw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Im2xyVxmDLx8HjVgUotW89RvCBTZST+VjO8xPo+qyFux5FUk8cCkJ4UY06gLEqmRJ PjdaD03TEPkAU5auhwVD/sYlU74Dk63vwHeCXa5Np0agEIrdEJpgbfagCyHEFNvAtB ZO+QDb8HYmtDlDVMlywZTrIQRdiXxcMYK1BJmQ3I= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , patches@lists.linux.dev, Jan Beulich , "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" , Sasha Levin Subject: [PATCH 6.6 001/129] memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:36:16 +0100 Message-ID: <20250115103554.418203868@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.48.0 In-Reply-To: <20250115103554.357917208@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20250115103554.357917208@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.68 X-stable: review X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Jan Beulich [ Upstream commit e0eec24e2e199873f43df99ec39773ad3af2bff7 ] On an (old) x86 system with SRAT just covering space above 4Gb: ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x100000000-0xfffffffff] hotplug the commit referenced below leads to this NUMA configuration no longer being refused by a CONFIG_NUMA=y kernel (previously NUMA: nodes only cover 6144MB of your 8185MB e820 RAM. Not used. No NUMA configuration found Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000027fffffff] was seen in the log directly after the message quoted above), because of memblock_validate_numa_coverage() checking for NUMA_NO_NODE (only). This in turn led to memblock_alloc_range_nid()'s warning about MAX_NUMNODES triggering, followed by a NULL deref in memmap_init() when trying to access node 64's (NODE_SHIFT=6) node data. To compensate said change, make memblock_set_node() warn on and adjust a passed in value of MAX_NUMNODES, just like various other functions already do. Fixes: ff6c3d81f2e8 ("NUMA: optimize detection of memory with no node id assigned by firmware") Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1c8a058c-5365-4f27-a9f1-3aeb7fb3e7b2@suse.com Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- mm/memblock.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) --- a/mm/memblock.c +++ b/mm/memblock.c @@ -1321,6 +1321,10 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_set_node(ph int start_rgn, end_rgn; int i, ret; + if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, + "Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n")) + nid = NUMA_NO_NODE; + ret = memblock_isolate_range(type, base, size, &start_rgn, &end_rgn); if (ret) return ret;