Analytical use of cookies
CVE-2023-52668: linux kernel vulnerability
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: zoned: fix lock ordering in btrfs_zone_activate() The btrfs CI reported a lockdep warning as follows by running generic generic/129. WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.7.0-rc5+ #1 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ kworker/u5:5/793427 is trying to acquire lock: ffff88813256d028 (&cache->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: btrfs_zone_finish_one_bg+0x5e/0x130 but task is already holding lock: ffff88810a23a318 (&fs_info->zone_active_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: btrfs_zone_finish_one_bg+0x34/0x130 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (&fs_info->zone_active_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}: ... -> #0 (&cache->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}: ... This is because we take fs_info->zone_active_bgs_lock after a block_group's lock in btrfs_zone_activate() while doing the opposite in other places. Fix the issue by expanding the fs_info->zone_active_bgs_lock's critical section and taking it before a block_group's lock.
- CVSS
- 5.5 MEDIUM
- EPSS
- 7.27%
- Known exploited
- not in KEV
- Product
- linux kernel
What is known
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: zoned: fix lock ordering in btrfs_zone_activate() The btrfs CI reported a lockdep warning as follows by running generic generic/129. WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.7.0-rc5+ #1 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ kworker/u5:5/793427 is trying to acquire lock: ffff88813256d028 (&cache->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: btrfs_zone_finish_one_bg+0x5e/0x130 but task is already holding lock: ffff88810a23a318 (&fs_info->zone_active_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: btrfs_zone_finish_one_bg+0x34/0x130 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (&fs_info->zone_active_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}: ... -> #0 (&cache->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}: ... This is because we take fs_info->zone_active_bgs_lock after a block_group's lock in btrfs_zone_activate() while doing the opposite in other places. Fix the issue by expanding the fs_info->zone_active_bgs_lock's critical section and taking it before a block_group's lock.