On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:08:42 -0200
Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:02:54PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > so it won't impose an additional limits on max_cpus limits
> > supported by different targets.
> >
> > It removes global MAX_CPUMASK_BITS constant and need to
> > bump it up whenever max_cpus is being increased for
> > a target above MAX_CPUMASK_BITS value.
> >
> > Use runtime max_cpus value instead to allocate sufficiently
> > sized node_cpu bitmasks in numa parser.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
>
> As the cpu_index assignment code isn't obviously safe against
> setting cpu_index > max_cpus, I would like to squash this into
> the patch. Is that OK for you?
Go ahead, change looks good to me.
>
> diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c
> index 1b6fa78..33f2fd4 100644
> --- a/numa.c
> +++ b/numa.c
> @@ -401,6 +401,7 @@ void numa_post_machine_init(void)
>
> CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
> for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
> + assert(cpu->cpu_index < max_cpus);
> if (test_bit(cpu->cpu_index, numa_info[i].node_cpu)) {
> cpu->numa_node = i;
> }
> @@ -559,6 +560,8 @@ int numa_get_node_for_cpu(int idx)
> {
> int i;
>
> + assert(idx < max_cpus);
> +
> for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
> if (test_bit(idx, numa_info[i].node_cpu)) {
> break;
>
