ghsa-hg9v-mfmx-jx2x
Vulnerability from github
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:
BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started
============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599 Not tainted
btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
but task is already holding lock: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem); lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
1 lock held by btrfs/2326: #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
stack backtrace: CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80 __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0 ? __pfxlockacquire+0x10/0x10 ? pfxlockacquire+0x10/0x10 lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0 ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250 ? pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110 ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100 down_read+0x8e/0x440 ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250 ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10 ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70 ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40 btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250 ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00 ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0 ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70 ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10 ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300 ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0 btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0 ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10 ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0 ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270 ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10 ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20 btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80 read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0 btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0 read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0 read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0 ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10 btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720 ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10 ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100 ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30 ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70 ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300 btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820 ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10 ? down_read+0x194/0x440 ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10 ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70 ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40 btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250 ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10 scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0 ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10 submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0 ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710 ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10 scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580 scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440 ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710 ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10 ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70 ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40 scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0 scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70 ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0 ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10 ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170 ? __up_read+0x189/0x700 ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300 ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0 btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0 ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250 ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10 btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00 ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0 ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10 ? ---truncated---
{ affected: [], aliases: [ "CVE-2024-48875", ], database_specific: { cwe_ids: [ "CWE-667", ], github_reviewed: false, github_reviewed_at: null, nvd_published_at: "2025-01-11T13:15:22Z", severity: "MODERATE", }, details: "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nbtrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it\n\nRunning fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS=\"-O rst\" to force the usage of\nthe RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:\n\n BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started\n\n ============================================\n WARNING: possible recursive locking detected\n 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599 Not tainted\n --------------------------------------------\n btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:\n ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250\n\n but task is already holding lock:\n ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250\n\n other info that might help us debug this:\n Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n CPU0\n ----\n lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);\n lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);\n\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n May be due to missing lock nesting notation\n\n 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:\n #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250\n\n stack backtrace:\n CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599\n Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011\n Call Trace:\n <TASK>\n dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80\n __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0\n ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10\n ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10\n lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0\n ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250\n ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10\n ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110\n ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100\n down_read+0x8e/0x440\n ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250\n ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10\n ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70\n ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40\n btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250\n ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00\n ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0\n ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70\n ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10\n ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10\n ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300\n ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0\n btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0\n ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10\n ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0\n ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270\n ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10\n ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20\n btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80\n read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0\n btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0\n read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0\n read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0\n ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10\n btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720\n ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10\n ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100\n ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30\n ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70\n ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300\n btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820\n ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10\n ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10\n ? down_read+0x194/0x440\n ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10\n ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70\n ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40\n btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250\n ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10\n scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0\n ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10\n submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0\n ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710\n ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10\n ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10\n scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580\n scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440\n ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710\n ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10\n ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10\n ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70\n ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40\n scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0\n scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70\n ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0\n ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10\n ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170\n ? __up_read+0x189/0x700\n ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300\n ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0\n btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0\n ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250\n ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10\n btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00\n ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0\n ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10\n ?\n---truncated---", id: "GHSA-hg9v-mfmx-jx2x", modified: "2025-02-03T15:32:01Z", published: "2025-01-11T15:30:28Z", references: [ { type: "ADVISORY", url: "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48875", }, { type: "WEB", url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8cca35cb29f81eba3e96ec44dad8696c8a2f9138", }, { type: "WEB", url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a2e99dcd7aafa9d474f7d9b0740b8f93c4e156c2", }, { type: "WEB", url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a5bc4e030f50fdbb1fbc69acc1e0c5f57c79d044", }, ], schema_version: "1.4.0", severity: [ { score: "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H", type: "CVSS_V3", }, ], }
Log in or create an account to share your comment.
This schema specifies the format of a comment related to a security advisory.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.