Re: [PATCH v4] numa: make node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware

[Yunsheng Lin]

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 [1], NUMA_NO_NODE really means no node affinity,
>> which also means all cpus should be usable. So the cpumask_of_node()
>> should always return all cpus online when user passes the node id as
>> NUMA_NO_NODE, just like similar semantic that page allocator handles
>> NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>
>> But we cannot really copy the page allocator logic. Simply because the
>> page allocator doesn't enforce the near node affinity. It just picks it
>> up as a preferred node but then it is free to fallback to any other numa
>> node. This is not the case here and node_to_cpumask_map will only restrict
>> to the particular node's cpus which would have really non deterministic
>> behavior depending on where the code is executed. So in fact we really
>> want to return cpu_online_mask for NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>
>> Some arches were already NUMA_NO_NODE aware, so only change them to return
>> cpu_online_mask and use NUMA_NO_NODE instead of "-1".
>>
>> Also there is a debugging version of node_to_cpumask_map() for x86 and
>> arm64, which is only used when CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS is defined, this
>> patch changes it to handle NUMA_NO_NODE as normal node_to_cpumask_map().
>> And "fix" a sign "bug" since it is for debugging and should catch all the
>> error cases.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1125789/
>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The change makes sense to me. I wish this particular thing wasn't
> duplicated so heavily - maybe we can unify all of them and use a common
> code? In a separate patch most likely...
> 
> I would also not change cpu_all_mask -> cpu_online_mask in this patch.
> That is worth a patch on its own with some explanation. I haven't
> checked but I would suspect that alpha simply doesn't support cpu
> hotplug so the two things are the same. But this needs some explanation.

In commit 44c36aed43b5 ("alpha: cpumask_of_node() should handle -1 as a node")
and commit d797396f3387 ("MIPS: cpumask_of_node() should handle -1 as a node")
mention below:
"pcibus_to_node can return -1 if we cannot determine which node a pci bus
is on. If passed -1, cpumask_of_node will negatively index the lookup array
and pull in random data"

>From the cpu hotplug process: take_cpu_down() -> __cpu_disable().
alpha does not define the __cpu_disable() function, so it seems alpha does not
support HOTPLUG_CPU.

> 
> Other than that the patch looks good to me. Feel free to add
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> [...]
>> diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/alpha/include/asm/topology.h
>> index 5a77a40..836c9e2 100644
>> --- a/arch/alpha/include/asm/topology.h
>> +++ b/arch/alpha/include/asm/topology.h
>> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ static const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
>>  	int cpu;
>>  
>>  	if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>> -		return cpu_all_mask;
>> +		return cpu_online_mask;
>>  
>>  	cpumask_clear(&node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
>>  
> [...]
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
>> index e6dad60..c676ffb 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
>> @@ -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;
>> +
>> +	if ((unsigned int)node >= nr_node_ids) {
>>  		printk(KERN_WARNING
>> -			"cpumask_of_node(%d): node > nr_node_ids(%u)\n",
>> +			"cpumask_of_node(%d): node >= nr_node_ids(%u)\n",
>>  			node, nr_node_ids);
>>  		dump_stack();
>>  		return cpu_none_mask;
> 
> Why do we need this?

As the commit log says, the above cpumask_of_node() is for debugging,
it should catch other "node < 0" cases except NUMA_NO_NODE.

Thanks for reviewing.