From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-il1-f198.google.com (mail-il1-f198.google.com [209.85.166.198]) (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 02EE32DA757 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 01:22:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.198 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762824123; cv=none; b=gzCU3E78JzMblu5DAa4c+MFteKkgFtre5lQKKn84MD2mdgT4EHPXTXwzUDiUf/K/IfGvbNSx8otdKfn7cdtSV90hR0HNDj8quUK3pXSRqwOm2tYfqu+nlCBpZt3TjinTby/rVac8hMcsR5x3PTn7/CzQFQzEl0dSGHWDFa3ETGA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762824123; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1Saewuj3B+oxPukwQPEoUCgMCPyS+mq1oCUOFby9KXU=; h=MIME-Version:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc: Content-Type; b=LyfzCHLmailTwUNY5hZJlVVxIbEAexxdHN/EikyNedO8vHXjzxD4z4ABdKUPh1vkDfBwwwOWwTRq3gFjaRZhl46p6CyHNsND+QJlMXdtwXEYD2pz4Kamij7M90gOWP2rZf+x70OqJ2yR3+0iKen2EYOYcEy0lFG4pubj5B8zgXc= 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=209.85.166.198 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-f198.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-43331ea8ed8so35876265ab.3 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:22:01 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1762824121; x=1763428921; 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=jgTHUyA6jLiZEgsIlU1BHXJL99ZEBvfYu/B6KIbfPcI=; b=ZSBtITsvpTuO7HuKMqIYiobtxpc/wLZvq/Ucj+we+tH5fOhVKAjiV6CNzB2MTvVARY JnzvDQlXyFegcC0GCsVAIwiBq/0Vp9YDi6OKiHeJk8v68w7k2JCPSi42zGnSSfIa72X+ SN/WOaBPZZM+nJEdpJTOwAtRVBBHAOt37+EOi/QckjGguwcJ4NI0bTxFLNflXiqYb49E yCr9O4vpFyd+C2JbCSYh6or5ndH9FpPcw2PKkVvNYrvPtJS65XfuIVe7LUqeujbbXeFw XnfK1FXs1Nk/ijzEcoqQDYIhelK10O1ycqvBDDeVH5RX9wdjmn7dY2TyGNEe8PxDBTnw NBjA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWAEs6BVSqEwcYM4b6BUViVO/Xc38TgjKDhbf+rEbc8wD4n1rBzpyOd2IatSw+uc35leidtNUFr@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxXPjsijlWXsLA4XRiV9x8bQlPC22HlrYRXoTwY2A5d7pWjf7+E YKH/okV0qjtQfWtvNZ5T6QhOVX+k7l3ia8/YsqKDAgnYFsX6iHIXXata0vYR41js7lkXFyVPHox W8+gHxT9xdP40aNIvlGCO1Fk28A4zcN/OsXoZDNimLmoKk+LNtVaeQPUFtq8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF3YFxFacr3KDbHpq5A+caT8jYHZKNqmASlSPxhn0zJLG8UjHgI2+NyHenfwkEKYFMzfCzIe/11H/4hPhr6H2dMvY/OyAng Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 2002:a92:d44d:0:b0:433:71a9:8f9e with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-43371a99638mr90879525ab.7.1762824121147; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:22:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:22:01 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20251111004535.668292559@linuxfoundation.org> X-Google-Appengine-App-Id: s~syzkaller X-Google-Appengine-App-Id-Alias: syzkaller Message-ID: <69128fb9.a70a0220.22f260.011a.GAE@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.12 391/565] 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" > 6.12-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 be17e3c43582f..7840a03e5bcb7 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.