From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oo1-f69.google.com (mail-oo1-f69.google.com [209.85.161.69]) (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 4980334C828 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 16:29:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.161.69 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764779385; cv=none; b=WNO0sYDfydNVMgi2dPQCBXk/wiaFYbDXDL/9lCh5jTrPbkMgImZ6vzrgEOFHOXdeEW0eq1JFFommLD97Rqc+yxbX+2KmLDvdKhaD9H1AldbPQUeVieZ4ull2R/odOLlPdhBmm9tzcfBX5HoEDFQqgL4HZ8xHO+D/OiPnBpBtJq0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764779385; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nT2H6GYXcpaFlrJsU3PaeOyF2JYj4sF+H5+pMOguJy4=; h=MIME-Version:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc: Content-Type; b=DhofjuS1pjvACDgvyYWrcoO2SCFZgsi0D+TR5Y8OnH5iNEJkiFeaY/6EGwQ0WIDABJtKfC95Bz/wJ9c/SYg/L62TJ9dwoP9KeRqPHYhfbJkCkDuQ1NZJeLc/MrEnR0knR5KB7ureYoBJAI+fEwKcKpkKWEYLcgRmWMkKUCuY0ug= 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=209.85.161.69 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-oo1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-65747f4376bso10112649eaf.2 for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:29:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1764779383; x=1765384183; 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=VmenYvner1gF0AcLKuVQeZezdlsynCmlN1QS7SOEg9w=; b=Rsm/IbOrxp0huMnt1ivPt+jaln1sKlHW5dkJCV3Paqic8oW0m1hZGZvTVIBiH3Ft9Y uARrn4nWcRQt26/Wab3iImCbxlxQ4GZhhO4YjS+GYdYMDE1+ytypVI8aQSrP4PkxRojx j8Nr0YzXLx1HMOA4QhtFN5V933o6FvTqXqCXTFiukr6L0Lg/y60o1X5e7h1OMt9/X2HJ qEqCaECSpwJdoYpElza/BtjxcQTwyfRFYOjEYWkmjYnQOjphjT8Mck5MGTCFrqjeBBCs 3EcRcbO2uLkppH0GLs/9WU2aNXFxCwvQ46XqM9x6utkwS40NVWxb0DjDXUMkHVHtyjsg Mm5g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW12IDhyW1y1jgTz/bMzBMmNMfUzaMFhultZjr7kHNV+mTXSSST75crWaOlmZDTw2JwMDfOE+c=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwyfBhSqp61igOEbTIXrHPi/pOB6qAacdD75SDB2aMQovrqv/nI YKHwSUlzL9r55y5xeKW8aHYITmv/bJ3EMQlFFhPVoB7DH/UWYl4bEvdVDzvUtQWkzoidhX4m7IF WtAfAsvFMnReXfg+N6+8czECfsf/83wC84OjtHvMFzFGJYPOBlk4HRfUXWLk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGF1mvlwtf789Qboy6BF1yW/rvB6yb3TeT1HWfTMIdKo30IOKdbywSzRX940k+AxpeVqts9s3njzaXd9Mwd0NZD8cJ+rq/v Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:181a:b0:43f:76b4:816e with SMTP id 5614622812f47-4536e3af7b0mr1406748b6e.4.1764779383377; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:29:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:29:43 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20251203152449.510968694@linuxfoundation.org> X-Google-Appengine-App-Id: s~syzkaller X-Google-Appengine-App-Id-Alias: syzkaller Message-ID: <69306577.a70a0220.d98e3.01b9.GAE@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 240/568] 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" > 6.1-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 dccc8b3f10459..42fb833ef2834 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.