From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ot1-f72.google.com (mail-ot1-f72.google.com [209.85.210.72]) (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 120713148D6 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 15:37:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.72 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764776260; cv=none; b=iuTDy7PkFO4Beq3WoAApkjApRfpVsYm5QAsUkocAHYdDiIuAitnIvQ/HVzbvLwi4P22kS/64Wptlk0spd1FdBu+BoYAQ3CG5TdDG/WwHsLGczkw3qEVHYYH2oQt/1Xo/MlVpGHThP+awJWonfjAgUOa1Igi0uVsvBApv+1lFJsI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764776260; c=relaxed/simple; bh=URwIkXoJGIhaf6h4erzozKo5YdtNlIml7iZ5wYMoZNY=; h=MIME-Version:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc: Content-Type; b=nTR+t1Glv5iYi77jv0u98s0dv2sE4LwNtHHu/wzqYiLD8pDJ5341eLGko7B5z3t1pec1x3pwAI8Kvw82Plp771H/w1Sa+Yik4tXwCSr+EE0vBRWyxboEaeUw3vwOdWGHizmGgpIFgCMHCLaMhLRQ619Wro5/+kngllUzlwkJpXE= 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=209.85.210.72 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-ot1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-7c7611165b3so5258417a34.2 for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 07:37:38 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1764776258; x=1765381058; 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=/elcimwPgXstgKnTlIN9KfZhixTnvPoLHjpdzZzVoOY=; b=Mf0Hy6vaS6Q+619dfXPFIpuH+O2A8/YQnalypbdMe9SeX2iwaATT8m7AnBjbOl9PHd Cq7M1It/S5yprzHN5MQ7f8nHykp3de2NXOzhuqSCh2Aubw5vU8o4ayznoCXCBzMB5a/y yv8SsFYuANPbq+5yxduhs8lsdyp6XENGuifA5K72Fruvz01meK/AGkPx1qJy6xTz6sgo AxnCpXoX6F94aqRDE+SRDi+iQfaHxE2nBbvuMzoRCNE8oldUIh2WxwwcbQwpGynEBMC4 tSoPrKsTnrd5lzws5VKWV4q6/7hSB2YPpVKYy0q1Oox0HXfsSceU98q0sXXWTZBiR2Un xDXw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUQtxFWW1AhCji7WcnJKsmnH+JbW+Dal4cARFcdNp9EXDKoKHrGzgryCT+BbpkcDcWB/26eP7lZ@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxoFPIP+aIdHGdByaCaG2J4WWBmGb1nf16Pgoh9ccQDK/VwPnK0 y1G4RIYmiS7FCe7Ww4eZgTK/qlQRGVaxZGmFcrs4WgG5HdqaO3F4OAqgiNKjJUUcl8yk7GnVuta cfM95lAToIhyZsYBjGUzvaz++sFnCehHkInyAvSTrFlcgSERJxx2tN7D5p4E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF/HJsWGbBN8Hj0XK2wsI5QnGAyQ231nFm6XhVliXXmKL+EBsLT0hjyi+becUo9ruJxPN0hqSM6G8/bFhVyeFdh1xNyhduY Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:2209:b0:451:4d82:b6e1 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-4536e3ae6a6mr1322895b6e.13.1764776258114; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 07:37:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 07:37:38 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20251203152405.317330579@linuxfoundation.org> X-Google-Appengine-App-Id: s~syzkaller X-Google-Appengine-App-Id-Alias: syzkaller Message-ID: <69305942.a70a0220.2ea503.00d1.GAE@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 127/300] 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" > 5.10-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.