From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oi1-f200.google.com (mail-oi1-f200.google.com [209.85.167.200]) (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 198E434403B for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 16:04:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.200 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764777854; cv=none; b=X8mdLQOem35Ho14OvO/izuTx9Coqgp5Vx91KEb0mYfA3bMrGReREMYiELnnoyi/nN+ABxKsSGMpQffrvaFdEP88ZbvK7dMnqInnZkPetO7BReLZGYcqayfBF9yesa1bsvBHblzpX+liQu3HTRvSdYUMzT/xcUMAVfrfgrx9kWXA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764777854; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nJqjEdow/Zt/TuLDaoijl8cu4nclMMywIodJXAD54i8=; h=MIME-Version:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc: Content-Type; b=Ce7QJI7G8/wWfuxYcFVak/co0TU9ebGzk0nPy76CB7Z6F6fQzFnAqmHbq4guanDMcDsDIqK6qWeySYGAKiWD+zo9DlcbHSvXllGDuHchrPvg1ktd/6oGdvF9t5m5vlmJqWEADO2z1sLLS/yuyexmMfP3MSje30XX64q1V3xQLmw= 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=209.85.167.200 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-oi1-f200.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-4514cb26767so2871599b6e.1 for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:04:11 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1764777851; x=1765382651; 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=CJDgUU97V4GjWs3LWgSaDK8Muw/itNKU1HQ88yeQQgE=; b=dHhoPO7HbT7nsaOjElArJNIDckhh2+k+moVKcuXZLv+IoyyDZb22HKqqBrcrNg9ZoV xcEdN2tJ49etoxo+E0R40y/qC60bGDuVXZbFTUzeZD2mkrYazJ5jcu7U/GyijHmaZAVe 3V7fz/qtD4/kJPbjVPARW488ScpZNHpNsBo8EaICZ9Ec/5Ke47iSr/FkMs7jn1wY/g5Z 0CfnpPyJ7akdl7VMaxhvxBzIr2v77dL50VAasbA3hwD+2Bxr83edB1PRP4a7jQh5zTo8 gqDGKtaifQUJMipfr/upGVFxJlRo4YVKsPiScxAuCiLwNfN7BP0raLSiaFXESFmK5YcP YMSg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWjHZRQmMNXik1cEVJryiBBdznX6RuIbA8qVm5mOCIWtDtHlEag5wsO3Aakn12M+8PwVonb0/A=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YztmLvt11BwTwTQ/LupP1Xy8Xgm3rAQqb9PkpKPi01VOgWap74Z mN9+LIKlvNwelg22hDf9NEKmtSNxVBQr4fPGFpS4OJ0IB+uqFjmgaTgSUquWbtuBX7+IHBxRUFK bweuhHl0kM9h7AU63d4bdQeTCTvptLM6N5P/n/i6FwB8/5zzGx5kqtYJugJo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGIMPejztAdrOQZy+vUI1/EMQ6vqwWNhRz4fHJX8PNwx1mu3VnZup8np2VmdmJ5HnNUv0iFfcAQ+xerwSOAbzmr3iffr3L7 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:150f:b0:450:c0ef:8092 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-4536e51a33amr1440205b6e.34.1764777850859; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:04:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:04:10 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20251203152420.150891955@linuxfoundation.org> X-Google-Appengine-App-Id: s~syzkaller X-Google-Appengine-App-Id-Alias: syzkaller Message-ID: <69305f7a.a70a0220.2ea503.00d3.GAE@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 165/392] 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" > 5.15-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 3a547e0b934f2..d322a22477e49 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.