Regression on linux-next (next-20250721)

[John Johansen]

On 7/28/25 09:53, Borah, Chaitanya Kumar wrote:
> 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?

yep thanks, fix made. That patch accidentally removed the spinlock initialization from
apparmor_file_alloc_security() while testing spin lock changes to the very similar
apparmor_sk_alloc_security(), and it wasn't caught :(

anyways fix is being pushed

> 
> 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