Re: [PATCH] jbd2: assign different lock_class_key for different filesystem

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2025/10/21 22:39, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> Yes, something like this. In fact, I think we could get away with just
>>> jbd2_trans_commit_key. There's definitely no need for j_revoke_lock,
>>> j_list_lock, j_history_lock, j_state_lock, j_abort_mutex keys as these are
>>> internal to jbd2. j_checkpoint_mutex and j_barrier do wrap around some
>>> filesystem code so maybe we'll need to specify keys for them but I'd start
>>> with just jbd2_trans_commit_key and wait whether syzbot manages to trigger
>>> another false positive report with that.
>>
>> I tried https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/patch.diff?x=11b4dde2580000 .
>> But I think https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/patch.diff?x=1644c3cd980000
>> pattern which all mutex_init_with_key() users follow seems more simpler
>> and easier to apply. What do you think?
> 
> Yes, the second version looks nicer. Thanks! BTW, did you verify that
> annotating j_barrier, j_checkpoint_mutex, and j_abort_mutex is really
> needed? Because I'd be slightly surprised if it really was...

No. https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/patch.diff?x=13a94e7c580000 was sufficient
for this specific report. But I don't know what will happen with ocfs2 which has
so complicated locking dependency ( https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream/s/ocfs2
has currently 27 open "possible deadlock" reports).

Do you want me to try this minimal change in linux-next via my tree for a while?
Or do you want to just apply this minimal change first?