In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES On an (old) x86 system with SRAT just covering space above 4Gb: ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x100000000-0xfffffffff] hotplug the commit referenced below leads to this NUMA configuration no longer being refused by a CONFIG_NUMA=y kernel (previously NUMA: nodes only cover 6144MB of your 8185MB e820 RAM. Not used. No NUMA configuration found Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000027fffffff] was seen in the log directly after the message quoted above), because of memblock_validate_numa_coverage() checking for NUMA_NO_NODE (only). This in turn led to memblock_alloc_range_nid()'s warning about MAX_NUMNODES triggering, followed by a NULL deref in memmap_init() when trying to access node 64's (NODE_SHIFT=6) node data. To compensate said change, make memblock_set_node() warn on and adjust a passed in value of MAX_NUMNODES, just like various o...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES On an (old) x86 system with SRAT just covering space above 4Gb: ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x100000000-0xfffffffff] hotplug the commit referenced below leads to this NUMA configuration no longer being refused by a CONFIG_NUMA=y kernel (previously NUMA: nodes only cover 6144MB of your 8185MB e820 RAM. Not used. No NUMA configuration found Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000027fffffff] was seen in the log directly after the message quoted above), because of memblock_validate_numa_coverage() checking for NUMA_NO_NODE (only). This in turn led to memblock_alloc_range_nid()'s warning about MAX_NUMNODES triggering, followed by a NULL deref in memmap_init() when trying to access node 64's (NODE_SHIFT=6) node data. To compensate said change, make memblock_set_node() warn on and adjust a passed in value of MAX_NUMNODES, just like various o...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES On an (old) x86 system with SRAT just covering space above 4Gb: ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x100000000-0xfffffffff] hotplug the commit referenced below leads to this NUMA configuration no longer being refused by a CONFIG_NUMA=y kernel (previously NUMA: nodes only cover 6144MB of your 8185MB e820 RAM. Not used. No NUMA configuration found Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000027fffffff] was seen in the log directly after the message quoted above), because of memblock_validate_numa_coverage() checking for NUMA_NO_NODE (only). This in turn led to memblock_alloc_range_nid()'s warning about MAX_NUMNODES triggering, followed by a NULL deref in memmap_init() when trying to access node 64's (NODE_SHIFT=6) node data. To compensate said change, make memblock_set_node() warn on and adjust a passed in value of MAX_NUMNODES,

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: m ...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES On an (old) x86 system with SRAT just covering space above 4Gb: ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x100000000-0xfffffffff] hotplug the commit referenced below leads to this NUMA configuration no longer being refused by a CONFIG_NUMA=y kernel (previously NUMA: nodes only cover 6144MB of your 8185MB e820 RAM. Not used. No NUMA configuration found Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000027fffffff] was seen in the log directly after the message quoted above), because of memblock_validate_numa_coverage() checking for NUMA_NO_NODE (only). This in turn led to memblock_alloc_range_nid()'s warning about MAX_NUMNODES triggering, followed by a NULL deref in memmap_init() when trying to access node 64's (NODE_SHIFT=6) node data. To compensate said change, make memblock_set_node() warn on and adjust a passed in value of MAX_NUMNOD...