We use necessary cookies to keep DataHouse.pl working and optional cookies for analytics and marketing. You can accept all, reject optional cookies, or configure your choices.

OK, I AGREE I DISAGREE CHANGE THE CONSENTS

Thanks to cookies and similar technologies (hereinafter referred to as "cookies"), we can improve the functionality of our website and display content tailored to your needs and expectations.

For more information on the use of cookies, please see our [Cookie Policy].

I agree to:

Analytical use of cookies

Marketing use of cookies

Use of necessary cookies (always active)

Your preferences regarding cookies, expressed after logging in to the website, will be assigned to your Datahouse.pl account. This ensures that it is also saved if you sign in to your account from another device or browser.

CONFIRM SELECTION CANCEL

CVE-2025-37856: linux kernel vulnerability

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() races As far as I can tell, these calls of list_del_init() on bg_list cannot run concurrently with btrfs_mark_bg_unused() or btrfs_mark_bg_to_reclaim(), as they are in transaction error paths and situations where the block group is readonly. However, if there is any chance at all of racing with mark_bg_unused(), or a different future user of bg_list, better to be safe than sorry. Otherwise we risk the following interleaving (bg_list refcount in parens) T1 (some random op) T2 (btrfs_mark_bg_unused) !list_empty(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_move_tail (1) btrfs_put_block_group (0) btrfs_delete_unused_bgs bg = list_first_entry list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); btrfs_put_block_group(bg); (-1) Ultimately, this results in a broken ref count that hits zero one deref early and the real final deref underflows the refcount, resulting in a WARNING.

CVE-2025-37856CVSS 5.5Linux

CVE-2025-37856: linux kernel vulnerability

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() races As far as I can tell, these calls of list_del_init() on bg_list cannot run concurrently with btrfs_mark_bg_unused() or btrfs_mark_bg_to_reclaim(), as they are in transaction error paths and situations where the block group is readonly. However, if there is any chance at all of racing with mark_bg_unused(), or a different future user of bg_list, better to be safe than sorry. Otherwise we risk the following interleaving (bg_list refcount in parens) T1 (some random op) T2 (btrfs_mark_bg_unused) !list_empty(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_move_tail (1) btrfs_put_block_group (0) btrfs_delete_unused_bgs bg = list_first_entry list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); btrfs_put_block_group(bg); (-1) Ultimately, this results in a broken ref count that hits zero one deref early and the real final deref underflows the refcount, resulting in a WARNING.

CVSS: 5.5 MEDIUM
EPSS: 12.43%
Known exploited: not in KEV
Product: linux kernel

What is known

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() races As far as I can tell, these calls of list_del_init() on bg_list cannot run concurrently with btrfs_mark_bg_unused() or btrfs_mark_bg_to_reclaim(), as they are in transaction error paths and situations where the block group is readonly. However, if there is any chance at all of racing with mark_bg_unused(), or a different future user of bg_list, better to be safe than sorry. Otherwise we risk the following interleaving (bg_list refcount in parens) T1 (some random op) T2 (btrfs_mark_bg_unused) !list_empty(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_move_tail (1) btrfs_put_block_group (0) btrfs_delete_unused_bgs bg = list_first_entry list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); btrfs_put_block_group(bg); (-1) Ultimately, this results in a broken ref count that hits zero one deref early and the real final deref underflows the refcount, resulting in a WARNING.

Sources

Back to security hub Contact DataHouse