6.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
commit e0eec24e2e199873f43df99ec39773ad3af2bff7 upstream.
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 <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1c8a058c-5365-4f27-a9f1-3aeb7fb3e7b2@xxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/memblock.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -1339,6 +1339,10 @@ 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;
