CVE-2025-71074

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

functionfs: fix the open/removal races

ffs_epfile_open() can race with removal, ending up with file->private_data pointing to freed object.

There is a total count of opened files on functionfs (both ep0 and dynamic ones) and when it hits zero, dynamic files get removed. Unfortunately, that removal can happen while another thread is in ffs_epfile_open(), but has not incremented the count yet. In that case open will succeed, leaving us with UAF on any subsequent read() or write().

The root cause is that ffs->opened is misused; atomic_dec_and_test() vs. atomic_add_return() is not a good idea, when object remains visible all along.

To untangle that * serialize openers on ffs->mutex (both for ep0 and for dynamic files) * have dynamic ones use atomic_inc_not_zero() and fail if we had zero ->opened; in that case the file we are opening is doomed. * have the inodes of dynamic files marked on removal (from the callback of simple_recursive_removal()) - clear ->i_private there. * have open of dynamic ones verify they hadnt been already removed, along with checking that state is FFS_ACTIVE.

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/e5bf5ee266633cb18fff6f98f0b7d59a62819eee