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.
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.
Metrics
Affected Vendors & Products
Advisories
| Source | ID | Title |
|---|---|---|
EUVD |
EUVD-2025-14136 | 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. |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7594-1 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7594-2 | Linux kernel (Azure) vulnerabilities |
Ubuntu USN |
USN-7594-3 | Linux kernel vulnerabilities |
Fixes
Solution
No solution given by the vendor.
Workaround
No workaround given by the vendor.
References
History
Wed, 12 Nov 2025 20:15:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| First Time appeared |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| Weaknesses | NVD-CWE-noinfo | |
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* | |
| Vendors & Products |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
Wed, 16 Jul 2025 13:45:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Metrics |
epss
|
epss
|
Sat, 10 May 2025 02:30:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| References |
| |
| Metrics |
threat_severity
|
cvssV3_1
|
Fri, 09 May 2025 07:00:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Description | 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. | |
| Title | btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() races | |
| References |
|
Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: Linux
Published:
Updated: 2025-05-26T05:22:23.651Z
Reserved: 2025-04-16T04:51:23.956Z
Link: CVE-2025-37856
No data.
Status : Analyzed
Published: 2025-05-09T07:16:06.593
Modified: 2025-11-12T20:08:08.820
Link: CVE-2025-37856
OpenCVE Enrichment
No data.
EUVD
Ubuntu USN