Bug 2365242 (CVE-2025-37856) - CVE-2025-37856 kernel: btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() races
Summary: CVE-2025-37856 kernel: btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() ...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2025-37856
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security DevOps Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-05-09 07:01 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2025-05-09 09:43 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2025-05-09 07:01:19 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() races

As far as I can tell, these calls of list_del_init() on bg_list cannot
run concurrently with btrfs_mark_bg_unused() or btrfs_mark_bg_to_reclaim(),
as they are in transaction error paths and situations where the block
group is readonly.

However, if there is any chance at all of racing with mark_bg_unused(),
or a different future user of bg_list, better to be safe than sorry.

Otherwise we risk the following interleaving (bg_list refcount in parens)

T1 (some random op)                       T2 (btrfs_mark_bg_unused)
                                        !list_empty(&bg->bg_list); (1)
list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); (1)
                                        list_move_tail (1)
btrfs_put_block_group (0)
                                        btrfs_delete_unused_bgs
                                             bg = list_first_entry
                                             list_del_init(&bg->bg_list);
                                             btrfs_put_block_group(bg); (-1)

Ultimately, this results in a broken ref count that hits zero one deref
early and the real final deref underflows the refcount, resulting in a WARNING.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.