CVE-2024-47679

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 bug1 in btrfs, after digged it into and I believe ita race in vfs.

Lets assume theres a inode (ie ino 261) with i_count 1 is called by iput(), and theres 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.

[2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable() return false when I reproduced the bug.

Weakness

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

Affected Software

Extended Description

A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and it is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc. A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related:

A race condition exists when an “interfering code sequence” can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity. The interfering code sequence could be “trusted” or “untrusted.” A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the product; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable product.

Potential Mitigations

• Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
• Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/26.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/29.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0eed942bc65de1f93eca7bda51344290f9c573bb
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0f8a5b6d0dafa4f533ac82e98f8b812073a7c9d1
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3721a69403291e2514d13a7c3af50a006ea1153b
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/47a68c75052a660e4c37de41e321582ec9496195
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/489faddb1ae75b0e1a741fe5ca2542a2b5e794a5
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/540fb13120c9eab3ef203f90c00c8e69f37449d1
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6c857fb12b9137fee574443385d53914356bbe11
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6cc13a80a26e6b48f78c725c01b91987d61563ef
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/88b1afbf0f6b221f6c5bb66cc80cd3b38d696687
• https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/01/msg00001.html
• https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/03/msg00002.html