From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-il1-f200.google.com (mail-il1-f200.google.com [209.85.166.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C941B314D2F for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 13:46:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.200 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763732817; cv=none; b=R8nOXYhw4+bwsIlQEnB5b+FI5CXY4Mq2aLt+wGSIxjrmeQB+g8TivW9E3ho9jUCbQ7d+rorZijShd1nqZiRu4hNnyl7DtMaxNUsf3dGbb4ZaWJX2tgGH6gs27VrTjdqMOjPqmFaJd/j66bHLkDFly6idKrCP4xv9g/5PsPo89Ow= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763732817; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kS3u8fbyJUVfH7ZouDgx6pPG5LryYlblfHXZF1UMjzc=; h=MIME-Version:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc: Content-Type; b=YpVvIrFjuPj+RHh7QD7ZqYnPfCio72MApm6cu8kpiH4I/jQt9Yc+CvcSCIoB9P85jXeE4LzuEIs+IlO/ZR/xjqFVfcRPU6zJEeG/PhV0A2V4Iqd10UHsUl6YiXRElH0ZJyP6GYNZRnrR264nKXbVTLyspuGjMwl6WvSk2pfwGCY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=syzkaller.appspotmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=M3KW2WVRGUFZ5GODRSRYTGD7.apphosting.bounces.google.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.200 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=syzkaller.appspotmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=M3KW2WVRGUFZ5GODRSRYTGD7.apphosting.bounces.google.com Received: by mail-il1-f200.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-4330f62ef60so19246075ab.0 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 05:46:55 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1763732815; x=1764337615; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:date:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jfM96cPDGqpbPBn7PPbQ4n5yVw9OLFafeLZIYjP6vEg=; b=J0tWMFSwuf2goEtOXj+qj3LDkl5qLafSAgstinuJ1t2CVhJnzeDJZYiWkK6IEwdspM MNae9dd9pQADk/07N6CzhczIH3pQe+LWlEdVYwkLIpuuk0gthvDhUlgmewIRBu4dou3U joKsR9GHxJD8GcDtw5HByxEIXRuEIpXaMT2e7KCKfCfvTqIrLAI07aSyrrmG08DswWb+ GTMxTTbi5NnRGNvNzUAI+M8brqLgG6A6cUVT9/5E//vv+zdWL9Xg4h0UAlIE4pNAOBcR POTPsC+1ubPbQ8fB6tHUfSRELu2inThUcW0eOTPSRqQzrF2FZKq2Di6u+yn9aXvqcLsJ wrng== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUsdUeenNdFp2wDWkW0IuqZ84rOsK6aq0jKKlDPoB/2FoaJeknarEgvRANdnDA+cata5sC1y28/@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzS6YWjyHuNPp8GZcdWu/soCjWCnw+ucqWiGfHianAAnCvD56xc aSs5xRM2YLnJ+aF2xyWm53iI0pw3fNNprQNl4h7RWMgRZF7bZs95FbizJKWdFD9yaH534sQavpY zU/jCTO2PArIRDBwWD5sOPSrm9iBr2Rmsq0HNZURtHFtKJRbMreVGT2KPkxA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHaeW1/gE1ZzEFWFfTj6KK9QOuddSw168iFNmQa5PZLlhIEVAFnmkaLSDS87hZOc0qRjL8wFnvOvPIkFlAaq3urMSTR6Xub Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1aab:b0:430:c491:583b with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-435b8e598d6mr18972995ab.14.1763732814933; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 05:46:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 05:46:54 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20251121130240.021598827@linuxfoundation.org> X-Google-Appengine-App-Id: s~syzkaller X-Google-Appengine-App-Id-Alias: syzkaller Message-ID: <69206d4e.a70a0220.d98e3.0046.GAE@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.6 253/529] jfs: fix uninitialized waitqueue in transaction manager From: syzbot To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: dave.kleikamp@oracle.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, sashal@kernel.org, ssrane_b23@ee.vjti.ac.in, stable@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > 6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > ------------------ > > From: Shaurya Rane > > [ Upstream commit 300b072df72694ea330c4c673c035253e07827b8 ] > > The transaction manager initialization in txInit() was not properly > initializing TxBlock[0].waitor waitqueue, causing a crash when > txEnd(0) is called on read-only filesystems. > > When a filesystem is mounted read-only, txBegin() returns tid=0 to > indicate no transaction. However, txEnd(0) still gets called and > tries to access TxBlock[0].waitor via tid_to_tblock(0), but this > waitqueue was never initialized because the initialization loop > started at index 1 instead of 0. > > This causes a 'non-static key' lockdep warning and system crash: > INFO: trying to register non-static key in txEnd > > Fix by ensuring all transaction blocks including TxBlock[0] have > their waitqueues properly initialized during txInit(). > > Reported-by: syzbot+c4f3462d8b2ad7977bea@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > Signed-off-by: Shaurya Rane > Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin > --- > fs/jfs/jfs_txnmgr.c | 9 +++++---- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/jfs/jfs_txnmgr.c b/fs/jfs/jfs_txnmgr.c > index dccc8b3f10459..42fb833ef2834 100644 > --- a/fs/jfs/jfs_txnmgr.c > +++ b/fs/jfs/jfs_txnmgr.c > @@ -272,14 +272,15 @@ int txInit(void) > if (TxBlock == NULL) > return -ENOMEM; > > - for (k = 1; k < nTxBlock - 1; k++) { > - TxBlock[k].next = k + 1; > + for (k = 0; k < nTxBlock; k++) { > init_waitqueue_head(&TxBlock[k].gcwait); > init_waitqueue_head(&TxBlock[k].waitor); > } > + > + for (k = 1; k < nTxBlock - 1; k++) { > + TxBlock[k].next = k + 1; > + } > TxBlock[k].next = 0; > - init_waitqueue_head(&TxBlock[k].gcwait); > - init_waitqueue_head(&TxBlock[k].waitor); > > TxAnchor.freetid = 1; > init_waitqueue_head(&TxAnchor.freewait); > -- > 2.51.0 > > > I see the command but can't find the corresponding bug. The email is sent to syzbot+HASH@syzkaller.appspotmail.com address but the HASH does not correspond to any known bug. Please double check the address.