CVE-2025-38650

Published Aug 22, 2025

Last updated 10 months ago

Overview

Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: hfsplus: remove mutex_lock check in hfsplus_free_extents Syzbot reported an issue in hfsplus filesystem: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 4400 at fs/hfsplus/extents.c:346 hfsplus_free_extents+0x700/0xad0 Call Trace: <TASK> hfsplus_file_truncate+0x768/0xbb0 fs/hfsplus/extents.c:606 hfsplus_write_begin+0xc2/0xd0 fs/hfsplus/inode.c:56 cont_expand_zero fs/buffer.c:2383 [inline] cont_write_begin+0x2cf/0x860 fs/buffer.c:2446 hfsplus_write_begin+0x86/0xd0 fs/hfsplus/inode.c:52 generic_cont_expand_simple+0x151/0x250 fs/buffer.c:2347 hfsplus_setattr+0x168/0x280 fs/hfsplus/inode.c:263 notify_change+0xe38/0x10f0 fs/attr.c:420 do_truncate+0x1fb/0x2e0 fs/open.c:65 do_sys_ftruncate+0x2eb/0x380 fs/open.c:193 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x3d/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd To avoid deadlock, Commit 31651c607151 ("hfsplus: avoid deadlock on file truncation") unlock extree before hfsplus_free_extents(), and add check wheather extree is locked in hfsplus_free_extents(). However, when operations such as hfsplus_file_release, hfsplus_setattr, hfsplus_unlink, and hfsplus_get_block are executed concurrently in different files, it is very likely to trigger the WARN_ON, which will lead syzbot and xfstest to consider it as an abnormality. The comment above this warning also describes one of the easy triggering situations, which can easily trigger and cause xfstest&syzbot to report errors. [task A] [task B] ->hfsplus_file_release ->hfsplus_file_truncate ->hfs_find_init ->mutex_lock ->mutex_unlock ->hfsplus_write_begin ->hfsplus_get_block ->hfsplus_file_extend ->hfsplus_ext_read_extent ->hfs_find_init ->mutex_lock ->hfsplus_free_extents WARN_ON(mutex_is_locked) !!! Several threads could try to lock the shared extents tree. And warning can be triggered in one thread when another thread has locked the tree. This is the wrong behavior of the code and we need to remove the warning.
Source
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
NVD status
Analyzed
Products
linux_kernel, debian_linux

Risk scores

CVSS 3.1

Type
Primary
Base score
5.5
Impact score
3.6
Exploitability score
1.8
Vector string
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Severity
MEDIUM

Weaknesses

nvd@nist.gov
CWE-667

Social media

Hype score
Not currently trending

Configurations

  1. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cgroup: Avoid iteration of dying tasks with zero refcount The commit 260fbcb92bbea ("cgroup: Move dying_tasks cleanup from cgroup_task_release() to cgroup_task_free()") extended the lifetime of tasks on the dying_tasks list. The iterators have provision to go through dying_tasks because of dying threadgroup leaders or explicit CSS_TASK_ITER_WITH_DEAD, however, it was expected that such tasks can obtain a new reference (that is possible before cgroup_task_release()/put_task_struct_rcu_user()). The tasks after cgroup_task_release() and before cgroup_task_free() are subject to race when they may or may not have ->usage count > 0. The race window is between css_task_iter_next() invocations when css_set_lock is released and we may arrive at a new ->task_pos. The iterator should not attempt to resurrect tasks whose ->usage count dropped to zero. (When that happens, __put_task_struct_rcu_cb() is already imminent and the returned task_struct would could be used after free.) As for the fix, we cannot simply check the signal->live count of a task on the dying list because that won't distinguish regular zombies waiting to be reaped from RCU remnant tasks that are going to be free'd. Therefore add an extra check to rule out ->usage==0 tasks from any iteration. The repeat: loop in css_task_iter_advance() doesn't consider ->usage count, so add a new loop to css_task_iter_next() to skip de-used tasks on the dying_list. Rough illustration of the possible race R (reader of cgroup.procs) T (thread) L (group leader) --------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- L exits, signal->live > 0 cgroup_task_dead(L) css_set_skip_task_iters() // skips only cset->tasks list_add_tail(&L->cg_list, &cset->dying_tasks) css_task_iter_next() take css_set_lock css_task_iter_advance() leader && signal->live != 0 => it->task_pos = &L->cg_list release css_set_lock T exits --signal->live == 0 cgroup_task_dead(T) // css_set_lock release_task(T) cgroup_task_release(T) release_task(L) // zap_leader cgroup_task_release(L) put_task_struct_rcu_user(L) ...RCU... put_task_struct(L) L->usage = 0 /* L still on dying_tasks */ ...RCU... __put_task_struct(L) css_task_iter_next() // another iteration take css_set_lock it->task_pos = &L->cg_list get_task_struct(L) => addition on 0 drop css_set_lock cgroup_task_free(L) css_set_skip_task_iters() // dying skip comes too late free_task(L) cgroup_procs_show() task_pid_vnr(L)•CVE-2026-98163