Regression on linux-next (next-20250721)

[Borah, Chaitanya Kumar]

Hello John,

Hope you are doing well. I am Chaitanya from the linux graphics team in 
Intel.

This mail is regarding a regression we are seeing in our CI runs[1] on
linux-next repository.

Since the version next-20250721 [2], we are seeing the following regression

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
<3>[   10.781401] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
<3>[   10.781411] The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe
<3>[   10.781414] you didn't initialize this object before use?
<3>[   10.781416] turning off the locking correctness validator.
<4>[   10.781420] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 745 Comm: rsyslogd Not tainted 
6.16.0-rc7-next-20250721-next-20250721-g979875200256+ #1 PREEMPT(voluntary)
<4>[   10.781422] Hardware name: Intel Corporation Arrow Lake Client 
Platform/ARL-H Lp5x T4 RVP, BIOS MTLPFWI1.R00.5204.D80.2505151204 05/15/2025
<4>[   10.781423] Call Trace:
<4>[   10.781424]  <TASK>
<4>[   10.781425]  dump_stack_lvl+0x91/0xf0
<4>[   10.781430]  dump_stack+0x10/0x20
<4>[   10.781431]  register_lock_class+0x491/0x4a0
<4>[   10.781434]  ? prepend_path+0x330/0x510
<4>[   10.781438]  ? prepend_path+0x8f/0x510
<4>[   10.781440]  __lock_acquire+0xa8/0x2650
<4>[   10.781444]  lock_acquire+0xc4/0x2e0
<4>[   10.781445]  ? update_file_ctx+0x1e/0x110
<4>[   10.781450]  _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x60
<4>[   10.781452]  ? update_file_ctx+0x1e/0x110
<4>[   10.781453]  update_file_ctx+0x1e/0x110
<4>[   10.781455]  aa_file_perm+0x68f/0x7f0
<4>[   10.781457]  common_file_perm+0x88/0x150
<4>[   10.781460]  apparmor_mmap_file+0x5f/0x80
<4>[   10.781462]  security_mmap_file+0x1b0/0x490
<4>[   10.781465]  vm_mmap_pgoff+0x5d/0x220
<4>[   10.781468]  ksys_mmap_pgoff+0x17a/0x250
<4>[   10.781471]  __x64_sys_mmap+0x33/0x70
<4>[   10.781474]  x64_sys_call+0x1eda/0x2680
<4>[   10.781477]  do_syscall_64+0x93/0xa20
<4>[   10.781480]  ? irqentry_exit+0x77/0xb0
<4>[   10.781482]  ? exc_page_fault+0xbd/0x2c0
<4>[   10.781484]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Details log can be found in [3].

After bisecting the tree, the following patch [4] seems to be the first 
"bad" commit

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
commit 88fec3526e84123997ecebd6bb6778eb4ce779b7

Author: John Johansen john.johansen at canonical.com

Date:   Thu Jun 19 22:11:52 2025 -0700


     apparmor: make sure unix socket labeling is correctly updated.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

We also verified that if we revert the patch the issue is not seen.

Could you please check why the patch causes this regression and provide 
a fix if necessary?

Thank you.

Regards

Chaitanya

[1]
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/linux-next/combined-alt.html?
[2] 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?h=next-20250721
[3]
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/linux-next/next-20250721/bat-arlh-2/boot0.txt
[4] 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?h=next-20250721&id=88fec3526e84123997ecebd6bb6778eb4ce779b7