You are viewing this page in an unauthorized frame window.
This is a potential security issue, you are being redirected to
https://nvd.nist.gov
An official website of the United States government
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
This CVE record has been updated after NVD enrichment efforts were completed. Enrichment data supplied by the NVD may require amendment due to these changes.
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput()
Hi, all
Recently I noticed a bug[1] in btrfs, after digged it into
and I believe it'a race in vfs.
Let's assume there's a inode (ie ino 261) with i_count 1 is
called by iput(), and there's a concurrent thread calling
generic_shutdown_super().
cpu0: cpu1:
iput() // i_count is 1
->spin_lock(inode)
->dec i_count to 0
->iput_final() generic_shutdown_super()
->__inode_add_lru() ->evict_inodes()
// cause some reason[2] ->if (atomic_read(inode->i_count)) continue;
// return before // inode 261 passed the above check
// list_lru_add_obj() // and then schedule out
->spin_unlock()
// note here: the inode 261
// was still at sb list and hash list,
// and I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE was not been set
btrfs_iget()
// after some function calls
->find_inode()
// found the above inode 261
->spin_lock(inode)
// check I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE
// and passed
->__iget()
->spin_unlock(inode) // schedule back
->spin_lock(inode)
// check (I_NEW|I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE) flags,
// passed and set I_FREEING
iput() ->spin_unlock(inode)
->spin_lock(inode) ->evict()
// dec i_count to 0
->iput_final()
->spin_unlock()
->evict()
Now, we have two threads simultaneously evicting
the same inode, which may trigger the BUG(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR)
statement both within clear_inode() and iput().
To fix the bug, recheck the inode->i_count after holding i_lock.
Because in the most scenarios, the first check is valid, and
the overhead of spin_lock() can be reduced.
If there is any misunderstanding, please let me know, thanks.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/
[2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable()
return false when I reproduced the bug.
Metrics
NVD enrichment efforts reference publicly available information to associate
vector strings. CVSS information contributed by other sources is also
displayed.
By selecting these links, you will be leaving NIST webspace.
We have provided these links to other web sites because they
may have information that would be of interest to you. No
inferences should be drawn on account of other sites being
referenced, or not, from this page. There may be other web
sites that are more appropriate for your purpose. NIST does
not necessarily endorse the views expressed, or concur with
the facts presented on these sites. Further, NIST does not
endorse any commercial products that may be mentioned on
these sites. Please address comments about this page to [email protected].
OR
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 2.6.37 up to (excluding) 5.10.227
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 5.11 up to (excluding) 5.15.168
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 5.16 up to (excluding) 6.1.113
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.2 up to (excluding) 6.6.54
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.7 up to (excluding) 6.10.13
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.11 up to (excluding) 6.11.2
Changed
Reference Type
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0eed942bc65de1f93eca7bda51344290f9c573bb No Types Assigned
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput()
Hi, all
Recently I noticed a bug[1] in btrfs, after digged it into
and I believe it'a race in vfs.
Let's assume there's a inode (ie ino 261) with i_count 1 is
called by iput(), and there's a concurrent thread calling
generic_shutdown_super().
cpu0: cpu1:
iput() // i_count is 1
->spin_lock(inode)
->dec i_count to 0
->iput_final() generic_shutdown_super()
->__inode_add_lru() ->evict_inodes()
// cause some reason[2] ->if (atomic_read(inode->i_count)) continue;
// return before // inode 261 passed the above check
// list_lru_add_obj() // and then schedule out
->spin_unlock()
// note here: the inode 261
// was still at sb list and hash list,
// and I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE was not been set
btrfs_iget()
// after some function calls
->find_inode()
// found the above inode 261
->spin_lock(inode)
// check I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE
// and passed
->__iget()
->spin_unlock(inode) // schedule back
->spin_lock(inode)
// check (I_NEW|I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE) flags,
// passed and set I_FREEING
iput() ->spin_unlock(inode)
->spin_lock(inode) ->evict()
// dec i_count to 0
->iput_final()
->spin_unlock()
->evict()
Now, we have two threads simultaneously evicting
the same inode, which may trigger the BUG(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR)
statement both within clear_inode() and iput().
To fix the bug, recheck the inode->i_count after holding i_lock.
Because in the most scenarios, the first check is valid, and
the overhead of spin_lock() can be reduced.
If there is any misunderstanding, please let me know, thanks.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/000000000000eabe1d0619c4