linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] [exfat?] [ocfs2?] kernel BUG in link_path

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGudoHH5KvF4aJiLSiEqu_UkHrqoCKt2XXRozDDh-Bub_usuSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 12:28:07 +0100
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To: syzbot <syzbot+d222f4b7129379c3d5bc@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc: brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, jlbec@...lplan.org, 
	joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com, linkinjeon@...nel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mark@...heh.com, 
	ocfs2-devel@...ts.linux.dev, sj1557.seo@...sung.com, 
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [exfat?] [ocfs2?] kernel BUG in link_path_walk

On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 12:25 PM syzbot
<syzbot+d222f4b7129379c3d5bc@...kaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> syzbot has tested the proposed patch but the reproducer is still triggering an issue:
> kernel BUG in ocfs2_journal_toggle_dirty
>
> (syz.0.554,7359,0):ocfs2_assign_bh:2417 ERROR: status = -30
> (syz.0.554,7359,0):ocfs2_inode_lock_full_nested:2512 ERROR: status = -30
> (syz.0.554,7359,0):ocfs2_shutdown_local_alloc:412 ERROR: status = -30
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> kernel BUG at fs/ocfs2/journal.c:1027!
>  <TASK>
>  ocfs2_journal_shutdown+0x524/0xab0 fs/ocfs2/journal.c:1109
>  ocfs2_mount_volume fs/ocfs2/super.c:1785 [inline]
>  ocfs2_fill_super+0x5574/0x63a0 fs/ocfs2/super.c:1083
>  get_tree_bdev_flags+0x40e/0x4d0 fs/super.c:1691
>  vfs_get_tree+0x92/0x2a0 fs/super.c:1751
>  fc_mount fs/namespace.c:1199 [inline]
>  do_new_mount_fc fs/namespace.c:3636 [inline]
>  do_new_mount+0x302/0xa10 fs/namespace.c:3712
>  do_mount fs/namespace.c:4035 [inline]
>  __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4224 [inline]
>  __se_sys_mount+0x313/0x410 fs/namespace.c:4201
>  do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
>  do_syscall_64+0xfa/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f

That's a different bug.