On 2019/9/16 20:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-09-19 20:07:22, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> [...]
@@ -861,9 +861,12 @@ void numa_remove_cpu(int cpu)
*/
const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
{
- if (node >= nr_node_ids) {
+ if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
On Mon 16-09-19 20:07:22, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
[...]
> >> @@ -861,9 +861,12 @@ void numa_remove_cpu(int cpu)
> >> */
> >> const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
> >> {
> >> - if (node >= nr_node_ids) {
> >> + if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> >> + return cpu_online_mask;
> >> +
>
On 2019/9/16 16:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 15-09-19 16:20:56, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> When passing the return value of dev_to_node() to cpumask_of_node()
>> without checking if the device's node id is NUMA_NO_NODE, there is
>> global-out-of-bounds detected by KASAN.
>>
>> >From the discussion
On Sun 15-09-19 16:20:56, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> When passing the return value of dev_to_node() to cpumask_of_node()
> without checking if the device's node id is NUMA_NO_NODE, there is
> global-out-of-bounds detected by KASAN.
>
> >From the discussion [1], NUMA_NO_NODE really means no node
When passing the return value of dev_to_node() to cpumask_of_node()
without checking if the device's node id is NUMA_NO_NODE, there is
global-out-of-bounds detected by KASAN.
>From the discussion [1], NUMA_NO_NODE really means no node affinity,
which also means all cpus should be usable. So the
