On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 09:58:07AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

Kees Cook [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

-#ifdef NODE_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS
-	pfn_align = node_map_pfn_alignment();
-	if (pfn_align && pfn_align < PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
-		printk(KERN_WARNING "Node alignment %LuMB < min %LuMB, rejecting NUMA config\n",
-		       PFN_PHYS(pfn_align) >> 20,
-		       PFN_PHYS(PAGES_PER_SECTION) >> 20);
-		return -EINVAL;
+	if (IS_ENABLED(NODE_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS)) {

Hrm, clever ...

quoted

+		unsigned long pfn_align = node_map_pfn_alignment();
+
+		if (pfn_align && pfn_align < PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
+			pr_warn("Node alignment %LuMB < min %LuMB, rejecting NUMA config\n",
+				PFN_PHYS(pfn_align) >> 20,
+				PFN_PHYS(PAGES_PER_SECTION) >> 20);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
 	}
-#endif
 	if (!numa_meminfo_cover_memory(mi))
 		return -EINVAL;
 

diff --git a/include/linux/page-flags-layout.h b/include/linux/page-flags-layout.h
index 71283739ffd2..1a4cdec2bd29 100644
--- a/include/linux/page-flags-layout.h
+++ b/include/linux/page-flags-layout.h

@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
  * there.  This includes the case where there is no node, so it is implicit.
  */
 #if !(NODES_WIDTH > 0 || NODES_SHIFT == 0)
-#define NODE_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS
+#define NODE_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS 1

but if we ever lose the 1 then the above will silently compile the code
within the IS_ENABLED() section out.

That's true, yes. I considered two other ways to do this:

1) smallest patch, but more #ifdef:

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
index 59ba008504dc..fbf5231a3d35 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c

@@ -541,7 +541,9 @@ static void __init numa_clear_kernel_node_hotplug(void)
 
 static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
 {
-	unsigned long uninitialized_var(pfn_align);
+#ifdef NODE_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS
+	unsigned long pfn_align;
+#endif
 	int i, nid;
 
 	/* Account for nodes with cpus and no memory */

2) medium size, weird style:

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
index 59ba008504dc..0df7ba9b21b2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c

@@ -541,7 +541,6 @@ static void __init numa_clear_kernel_node_hotplug(void)
 
 static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
 {
-	unsigned long uninitialized_var(pfn_align);
 	int i, nid;
 
 	/* Account for nodes with cpus and no memory */

@@ -570,12 +569,15 @@ static int __init numa_register_memblks(struct numa_meminfo *mi)
 	 * whether its granularity is fine enough.
 	 */
 #ifdef NODE_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS
-	pfn_align = node_map_pfn_alignment();
-	if (pfn_align && pfn_align < PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
-		printk(KERN_WARNING "Node alignment %LuMB < min %LuMB, rejecting NUMA config\n",
-		       PFN_PHYS(pfn_align) >> 20,
-		       PFN_PHYS(PAGES_PER_SECTION) >> 20);
-		return -EINVAL;
+	{
+		unsigned long pfn_align = node_map_pfn_alignment();
+
+		if (pfn_align && pfn_align < PAGES_PER_SECTION) {
+			pr_warn("Node alignment %LuMB < min %LuMB, rejecting NUMA config\n",
+			       PFN_PHYS(pfn_align) >> 20,
+			       PFN_PHYS(PAGES_PER_SECTION) >> 20);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
 	}
 #endif
 	if (!numa_meminfo_cover_memory(mi))

and 3 is what I sent: biggest, but removes #ifdef

Any preference?

Thanks!

-- 
Kees Cook