From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-io1-f72.google.com (mail-io1-f72.google.com [209.85.166.72]) (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 2434B30170C for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 11:29:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.72 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764588569; cv=none; b=f5rNoK1DSeEp7gc0VvERtV26adISzwHL68xP9r/1j7pmu+49oePUdWZHCM0BVLG7qthyr4XLcOy70ufdGfYjFCeYdUkBbwAjuerojtouKI8a0BdD76x3iaDnuASTFdTt35sLup65upU769Rin7TQTCdxAenDg6HCRT5UIdVmK8M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764588569; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1e3xXhcPNHWgicbIPtgAm1Z3M8jEizauH6ZfvImQYHc=; h=MIME-Version:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc: Content-Type; b=QwRlho1b/1DQOo0Bc6IN92BDdR+SoWRGT6tQFBvQah+yzmC/qZvxjZJsl62EjS8gykccfDFgtRAOQziFuN8pZGQ0x/hVroLP+1ruIPiospGwvHkTtvv0tyMDZB6F2GCWTqq8K/L2xYD+ANhtumMlYQVHu5MS9Qbh8f4erePGmkM= 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=209.85.166.72 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-io1-f72.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-9490559deffso245509539f.3 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2025 03:29:27 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1764588567; x=1765193367; 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=EfHZ+dazpAoEJkFZ0dyA7E//xH/NuSxVKK2DI5VlixI=; b=LH1vKBOuY4iTkfe+M6NqEKiRJbp2DI4qAZOx3q/RgmX4Iu+LHCkAqDKVOPAmRo6Bee RIC7IMckvkL3tBhhBhT10g2guK1CRy0XLu4UmMw35tBCZ0KSAs9zgei6XWNMq71XMHxA Q5vrUIGSEwyBVO1M5CxX6klknglU2cjkb5LcJYzy9QvJXznYtOfd7vzRZzhZKI9faljy QtITF6bR/Olmmru02KjJwEJ0Bx1U5H4aPQU3RcTvox7K3+6tG4QKGtBCsct6WpuEqUVo tOusRTSh+dhiVjr+f5bfkPmdBe+LCVLT0OJoFGwJcINsbOX60CNXcQTy9wruBVNNPu4P wbDg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWpkv8TlCmBZiHQdemaFlCLxh3Ga7Su+VLr3FozKE5gAyxMyNGcjfkb9tmYSKMcjT4kdJ8Tdi6u@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy4o9sUDHRdldYrqq25GopAAQkyGgJnlKq63sNaDj9y+0xQBcGm 4mj1iuo6C/ptwrR03k1bxAixPI/twRJoiKXb9j4N7px+FRxU/Kc7PP+AWFV/UcOOe8zRF68bQpJ NqmKgRn4NbZ8tQ9Gi2Ab9rjc6QcDbTHLAGpJr32TKBEnrjB3kaj0fk566SUk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGnOvmSMJiHTilz4QuvC4k33TNb6q929ZN9GMb5ns1D6ua+GNTnzx+AdRtKSiWT2jPRvhmUSNF7ofcblWO29+0vvE0jiKUA Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:1589:b0:948:89f2:ea34 with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-949488ffe08mr3497024139f.5.1764588567171; Mon, 01 Dec 2025 03:29:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 03:29:27 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20251201112244.638235384@linuxfoundation.org> X-Google-Appengine-App-Id: s~syzkaller X-Google-Appengine-App-Id-Alias: syzkaller Message-ID: <692d7c17.a70a0220.d98e3.0185.GAE@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 094/187] 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" > 5.4-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 6f6a5b9203d3f..97a2eb0f0b75d 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.