Jan Beulich 22f742b8f7 memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES
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@suse.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1c8a058c-5365-4f27-a9f1-3aeb7fb3e7b2@suse.com
Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2024-06-21 14:40:29 +02:00
..
2024-03-11 09:38:17 -07:00
2024-03-26 11:07:20 -07:00
2023-12-12 10:11:32 +01:00
2024-03-21 14:41:00 -07:00
2024-06-16 13:51:06 +02:00
2023-04-12 17:36:23 -07:00
2024-03-13 18:38:13 -04:00
2024-03-22 10:41:13 -07:00
2024-02-21 16:00:03 -08:00
2024-02-23 17:48:19 -08:00
2024-05-30 09:44:06 +02:00
2023-04-12 17:36:23 -07:00