linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
	Narasimhan V <Narasimhan.V@amd.com>,
	 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] memblock:fix validation of NUMA coverage
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:38:28 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgOMcScTviziAbL9Z2RDduaEFdZbHsESxqUS2eFfUmUVg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wickw1bAqWiMASA2zRiEA_nC3etrndnUqn_6C1tbUjAcQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 10:09, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Is there some broken scripting that people have started using (or have
> been using for a while and was recently broken)?

... and then when I actually pull the code, I note that the problem
where it checked _one_ bogus value has just been replaced with
checking _another_ bogus value.

Christ.

What if people use a node ID that is simply outside the range
entirely, instead of one of those special node IDs?

And now for memblock_set_node() you should apparently use NUMA_NO_NODE
to not get a warning, but for memblock_set_region_node() apparently
the right random constant to use is MAX_NUMNODES.

Does *any* of this make sense? No.

How about instead of having two random constants - and not having any
range checking that I see - just have *one* random constant for "I
have no range", call that NUMA_NO_NODE, and then have a simple helper
for "do I have a valid range", and make that be

   static inline bool numa_valid_node(int nid)
   { return (unsigned int)nid < MAX_NUMNODES; }

or something like that? Notice that now *all* of

 - NUMA_NO_NODE (explicitly no node)

 - MAX_NUMNODES (randomly used no node)

 - out of range node (who knows wth firmware tables do?)

will get the same result from that "numa_valid_node()" function.

And at that point you don't need to care, you don't need to warn, and
you don't need to have these insane rules where "sometimes you *HAVE*
to use NUMA_NO_NODE, or we warn, in other cases MAX_NUMNODES is the
thing".

Please? IOW, instead of adding a warning for fragile code, then change
some caller to follow the new rules, JUST FIX THE STUPID FRAGILITY!

Or hey, just do

    #define NUMA_NO_NODE MAX_NUMNODES

and have two names for the *same* constant, instead fo having two
different constants with strange semantic differences that seem to
make no sense and where the memblock code itself seems to go
back-and-forth on it in different contexts.

              Linus


  reply	other threads:[~2024-06-13 17:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-06-13 14:09 Mike Rapoport
2024-06-13 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-06-13 17:38   ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2024-06-14  6:01     ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-14  7:31       ` Mike Rapoport
2024-06-14  8:17     ` Mike Rapoport
2024-06-14 16:28       ` Linus Torvalds
2024-06-13 19:30 ` pr-tracker-bot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAHk-=wgOMcScTviziAbL9Z2RDduaEFdZbHsESxqUS2eFfUmUVg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=Narasimhan.V@amd.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox