Received: by 2002:a25:868d:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id z13csp1083886ybk;
        Wed, 13 May 2020 23:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwhAy8GVa0IJM6mXVWKk26hH+5mhd2WPUoHzrM7DlBXVRR+OwT0ifJ9DAi282OtUpINDXqb
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:4420:: with SMTP id om24mr2216269ejb.99.1589436964076;
        Wed, 13 May 2020 23:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1589436964; cv=none;
        d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        b=kZlC2r5w5mMGK7/Qlwd4FTQc3xxmJsMA80YLdeOg+TF49CTsnIU+L0kQr414PQowTW
         jBwYoJSLQK/VfvJVXcNIiUPtk2R2T/ZWpCqw0KUGm+nNtyOUdERLN4wZRXaVffatZ5SH
         KZYRx8Ct+hmYpn01RiabjHW0Pc5o62udlXCPwrzGJd9049zkPE1vx08XbclhrKj3xzNo
         UVH1LY17z1xFVQK7jdOX7MTjgfOV44A5bzcqIA8/y0KLz3lsqDMREqmpLXQa/f7gobtb
         746QILxr6HGsn2jhShfE/OdPmjFOizS3yZDSSy+MczHCD0+R1+Xle5eW1FPqkU+NhXMO
         lK+w==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to
         :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc
         :to:from:date;
        bh=LPFxUovGreo1xtDrhmeoIfbZsRb7ua1WqD24tY9kDMc=;
        b=wt+0+sS38baJFQv4hTogYIzeOFgEcIWx11woiyJ57vhpMFy5ipMUQLVK77Adv5pyt7
         +yhM++nfIiS7AjYeWu63WrCPWjkUSBwJilxygThbAWRNgtjTl0VXxEQzPQx/ntM95dZc
         /fWWwc1qt7+AMBfeiY4cdJcJPxb51piFEBaWxfMeCXpQ3bgc97iGYYuIEOXRCWDzbVRP
         DHXwTC2mhZ5/k16E/VNZJKyHUlsjupcm8CTJuL1GjW9zoFAiERbf0LXZcXP3PGbnHG3h
         8KzbZgxYJWIz+vqpJvJrW2ide8stGq2XyRxCI7cnw0I8J6N9khfVLMJJFnBdpKpVjmGM
         CL/A==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a19si1259625edn.349.2020.05.13.23.15.41;
        Wed, 13 May 2020 23:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1726035AbgENGOV (ORCPT <rfc822;chenc2371@gmail.com> + 99 others);
        Thu, 14 May 2020 02:14:21 -0400
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:50138 "EHLO verein.lst.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1725794AbgENGOV (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 14 May 2020 02:14:21 -0400
Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407)
        id 65CF468BEB; Thu, 14 May 2020 08:14:17 +0200 (CEST)
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 08:14:17 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+353be47c9ce21b68b7ed@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, jeremy.linton@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING in memtype_reserve
Message-ID: <20200514061417.GA8367@lst.de>
References: <000000000000f0d8d205a531f1a3@google.com> <20200509074507.GC1831917@kroah.com> <87wo5l4ecm.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200513124445.GA1082735@kroah.com> <87zhab249p.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200514035458.14760-1-hdanton@sina.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200514035458.14760-1-hdanton@sina.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Guys, can you please start formal thread on this?  I have no
idea where this came from and what the rationale is.  Btw, if the
pfn is crap in dma_direct_mmap then the dma_addr_t passed in is
crap, as it is derived from that.  What is the caller, and how is
this triggered?