From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0001C3311 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:26:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725269190; cv=none; b=kpXnhE8zsFpZ97noGldhPRwElAvp5U30h/euixdO3pQKkNhYRkl/I0+z8paZ1fTWWRQjrn3qAXjb56fT3rdxWI6eMIHs0pKGGwYMJBxMJcfcRtMMZ/tEAAHIQ76S5gr7f7UFAVliDpU5cVVQ0/79MCL87g/tYmxjmUE+JKAGVA4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725269190; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eSHFani8ArvDeQSL87YQmn6EkZgH9PDAch15/qpmdAU=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pEXZamoBqrr/a4nnpKyuqilf5Mr1wx8bF8x3zebW66vvND/p/7MtxBwcb56vbVuOn8/OhWGQmm4T1P+jywRnIJ+T/ICeXYnPJnVRwHuzxfIlm71KUQ376GRKpIbP9zbP1WP/B8Qa69haJUVP5OBh/gMFIebmp4L9wScjibEP7Zw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=RuhltjrZ; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=N7AB/F6G; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="RuhltjrZ"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="N7AB/F6G" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1725269187; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=l3XsePS91xsi6XROLfLhvymOx7wWvh+T1BBd+IapLi0=; b=RuhltjrZisza+eAvJ9sJu9YugDwt+4erismnWid44XBCK4zyA5pm+wkbuHpdVZNY+aBeIn aXQvHFFm4y0xf1zBXX7pR18NtJng+DZFGp+YQRGWqop0+0e5HolGPcLhcekgz0S7d9Opap 4MmKz3h0zohPQlsqQapYK1LqXjql/ag+YcwyifPdA1fh0OeS/EWHS/CeU+SpkHBwOZuMim jRYMJw6CM93PkT8hTsOjeR0hqgF8J8t1xIOI2JAAaPWcNxECPzPnIwpsvCT+Z0d8X8N4Xc uE/b5+uuIJyBrQIUfY8BkTHbkTWUAtcnFRjvUqyTp8wHLi7oQ+9kLqcQ2Pn17A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1725269187; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=l3XsePS91xsi6XROLfLhvymOx7wWvh+T1BBd+IapLi0=; b=N7AB/F6G3OxaLjyRczP0ozWFPqT7putrpDdkkzj/GTmcItlENuSnguN7/vAw1tXzZIreRu YexhMLzo2lk2eNCA== To: Xingyu Li , anna-maria@linutronix.de, frederic@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yu Hao , Tejun Heo Subject: Re: BUG: INFO: trying to register non-static key in call_timer_fn In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 11:26:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87cylm76f1.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, Aug 28 2024 at 17:16, Xingyu Li wrote: > We found a bug in Linux 6.10 using syzkaller. It is possibly a > corrupted list bug. > The reproducer is > https://gist.github.com/freexxxyyy/4c465c7d81957779d8bdea44f6cb8977 Again. Without exact kernel version, config and reproduction instructions this is not really helpful. > The bug report is: > > Syzkaller hit 'INFO: trying to register non-static key in call_timer_fn' bug. > > INFO: trying to register non-static key. > The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe > you didn't initialize this object before use? That's simply not possible. > list_add corruption. prev is NULL. > Call Trace: > > __list_add_valid include/linux/list.h:88 [inline] > __list_add include/linux/list.h:150 [inline] > list_add_tail include/linux/list.h:183 [inline] > insert_work+0x114/0x320 kernel/workqueue.c:2212 > __queue_work+0xb61/0xce0 kernel/workqueue.c:2360 > queue_work_on+0x18a/0x2d0 kernel/workqueue.c:2411 So that looks similar to the other unexplainable report https://lore.kernel.org/all/CALAgD-7TsMdA7rjxfpheXc=MNqikEXY9TZNxJt4z9vm6Yfs5qQ@mail.gmail.com and smells like memory corruption of some sort, which then triggers non-sensical issues in other code. Thanks, tglx