From e0eec24e2e199873f43df99ec39773ad3af2bff7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jan Beulich Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 09:39:10 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES 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) --- mm/memblock.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index d09136e040d3..08e9806b1cf9 100644 --- a/mm/memblock.c +++ b/mm/memblock.c @@ -1339,6 +1339,10 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_set_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size, 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; From 3ac36aa7307363b7247ccb6f6a804e11496b2b36 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jan Beulich Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 09:42:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mm/numa: Use NUMA_NO_NODE when calling memblock_set_node() memblock_set_node() warns about using MAX_NUMNODES, see e0eec24e2e19 ("memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES") for details. Reported-by: Narasimhan V Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org [bp: commit message] Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240603141005.23261-1-bp@kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/abadb736-a239-49e4-ab42-ace7acdd4278@suse.com Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) --- arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c index ce84ba86e69e..6ce10e3c6228 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static void __init numa_clear_kernel_node_hotplug(void) for_each_reserved_mem_region(mb_region) { int nid = memblock_get_region_node(mb_region); - if (nid != MAX_NUMNODES) + if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) node_set(nid, reserved_nodemask); } @@ -614,9 +614,9 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void)) nodes_clear(node_online_map); memset(&numa_meminfo, 0, sizeof(numa_meminfo)); WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.memory, - MAX_NUMNODES)); + NUMA_NO_NODE)); WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.reserved, - MAX_NUMNODES)); + NUMA_NO_NODE)); /* In case that parsing SRAT failed. */ WARN_ON(memblock_clear_hotplug(0, ULLONG_MAX)); numa_reset_distance();