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/000000000000eabe1d0619c48986@google.com/
[2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable()
return false when I reproduced the bug.
Metrics
Affected Vendors & Products
| Source | ID | Title |
|---|---|---|
Debian DLA |
DLA-4008-1 | linux-6.1 security update |
Debian DLA |
DLA-4075-1 | linux security update |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7166-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7166-2 | Linux kernel (AWS) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7166-3 | Linux kernel (HWE) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7166-4 | Linux kernel (Xilinx ZynqMP) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7186-1 | Linux kernel (Intel IoTG) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7186-2 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7194-1 | Linux kernel (Azure) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7276-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7277-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7293-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7294-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7294-2 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7294-3 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7294-4 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7295-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7301-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7303-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7303-2 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7303-3 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7304-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7310-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7311-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7384-1 | Linux kernel (Azure) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7384-2 | Linux kernel (Azure) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7385-1 | Linux kernel (IBM) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7386-1 | Linux kernel (OEM) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7393-1 | Linux kernel (FIPS) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7401-1 | Linux kernel (AWS) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7403-1 | Linux kernel (HWE) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7413-1 | Linux kernel (IoT) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7468-1 | Linux kernel (Azure, N-Series) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7539-1 | Linux kernel (Raspberry Pi) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7540-1 | Linux kernel (Raspberry Pi) vulnerabilities |
Solution
No solution given by the vendor.
Workaround
No workaround given by the vendor.
Mon, 03 Nov 2025 23:30:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| References |
|
Mon, 03 Nov 2025 21:30:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| References |
|
Fri, 08 Nov 2024 16:00:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| References |
|
Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:15:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| First Time appeared |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| Weaknesses | CWE-362 | |
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* | |
| Vendors & Products |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| Metrics |
cvssV3_1
|
cvssV3_1
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2024 01:30:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| References |
| |
| Metrics |
threat_severity
|
cvssV3_1
|
Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:15:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Metrics |
ssvc
|
Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:00:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| 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/000000000000eabe1d0619c48986@google.com/ [2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable() return false when I reproduced the bug. | |
| Title | vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput() | |
| References |
|
|
Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: Linux
Published:
Updated: 2025-11-03T22:20:46.317Z
Reserved: 2024-09-30T16:00:12.939Z
Link: CVE-2024-47679
Updated: 2024-10-21T13:07:37.060Z
Status : Modified
Published: 2024-10-21T12:15:04.920
Modified: 2025-11-03T23:16:15.737
Link: CVE-2024-47679
OpenCVE Enrichment
No data.
Debian DLA
Ubuntu USN