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.
Analysis and contextual insights are available on OpenCVE Cloud.
No vendor fix or workaround currently provided.
Additional remediation guidance may be available on OpenCVE Cloud.
Tracking
Sign in to view the affected projects.
| 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 |
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: 2026-05-11T20:38:39.732Z
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