FKIE_CVE-2026-64112
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-07-19 16:17 - Updated: 2026-07-20 15:17
Severity
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rbd: eliminate a race in lock_dwork draining on unmap
Given how rbd_lock_add_request() and rbd_img_exclusive_lock() are
written, lock_dwork may be (re)queued more than it's actually needed:
for example in case a new I/O request comes in while we are in the
middle of rbd_acquire_lock() on behalf of another I/O request. This is
expected and with rbd_release_lock() preemptively canceling lock_dwork
is benign under normal operation.
A more problematic example is maybe_kick_acquire():
if (have_requests || delayed_work_pending(&rbd_dev->lock_dwork)) {
dout("%s rbd_dev %p kicking lock_dwork\n", __func__, rbd_dev);
mod_delayed_work(rbd_dev->task_wq, &rbd_dev->lock_dwork, 0);
}
It's not unrealistic for lock_dwork to get canceled right after
delayed_work_pending() returns true and for mod_delayed_work() to
requeue it right there anyway. This is a classic TOCTOU race.
When it comes to unmapping the image, there is an implicit assumption
of no self-initiated exclusive lock activity past the point of return
from rbd_dev_image_unlock() which unlocks the lock if it happens to be
held. This unlock is assumed to be final and lock_dwork (as well as
all other exclusive lock tasks, really) isn't expected to get queued
again. However, lock_dwork is canceled only in cancel_tasks_sync()
(i.e. later in the unmap sequence) and on top of that the cancellation
can get in effect nullified by maybe_kick_acquire(). This may result
in rbd_acquire_lock() executing after rbd_dev_device_release() and
rbd_dev_image_release() run and free and/or reset a bunch of things.
One of the possible failure modes then is a violated
rbd_assert(rbd_image_format_valid(rbd_dev->image_format));
in rbd_dev_header_info() which is called via rbd_dev_refresh() from
rbd_post_acquire_action().
Redo exclusive lock task draining to provide saner semantics and try
to meet the assumptions around rbd_dev_image_unlock().
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version |
|---|
{
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "Linux",
"programFiles": [
"drivers/block/rbd.c"
],
"repo": "https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git",
"vendor": "Linux",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "3427d7ae38337066ce88b68302e285d344ab756b",
"status": "affected",
"version": "fd22aef8b47cfc068448df65c1183698b0abd815",
"versionType": "git"
},
{
"lessThan": "9dcd4f5c99b491c37be90b0bd9988db48225fb75",
"status": "affected",
"version": "fd22aef8b47cfc068448df65c1183698b0abd815",
"versionType": "git"
},
{
"lessThan": "9400efc76b42c751211974a25c91d2c19c65b01b",
"status": "affected",
"version": "fd22aef8b47cfc068448df65c1183698b0abd815",
"versionType": "git"
},
{
"lessThan": "9fc75b71fdd38465c76c6f6a884cdd4ae3c72d90",
"status": "affected",
"version": "fd22aef8b47cfc068448df65c1183698b0abd815",
"versionType": "git"
}
]
},
{
"defaultStatus": "affected",
"product": "Linux",
"programFiles": [
"drivers/block/rbd.c"
],
"repo": "https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git",
"vendor": "Linux",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "4.12"
},
{
"lessThan": "4.12",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "6.12.*",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "6.12.92",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "6.18.*",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "6.18.34",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "7.0.*",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "7.0.11",
"versionType": "semver"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "*",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "7.1",
"versionType": "original_commit_for_fix"
}
]
}
],
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67"
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nrbd: eliminate a race in lock_dwork draining on unmap\n\nGiven how rbd_lock_add_request() and rbd_img_exclusive_lock() are\nwritten, lock_dwork may be (re)queued more than it\u0027s actually needed:\nfor example in case a new I/O request comes in while we are in the\nmiddle of rbd_acquire_lock() on behalf of another I/O request. This is\nexpected and with rbd_release_lock() preemptively canceling lock_dwork\nis benign under normal operation.\n\nA more problematic example is maybe_kick_acquire():\n\n if (have_requests || delayed_work_pending(\u0026rbd_dev-\u003elock_dwork)) {\n dout(\"%s rbd_dev %p kicking lock_dwork\\n\", __func__, rbd_dev);\n mod_delayed_work(rbd_dev-\u003etask_wq, \u0026rbd_dev-\u003elock_dwork, 0);\n }\n\nIt\u0027s not unrealistic for lock_dwork to get canceled right after\ndelayed_work_pending() returns true and for mod_delayed_work() to\nrequeue it right there anyway. This is a classic TOCTOU race.\n\nWhen it comes to unmapping the image, there is an implicit assumption\nof no self-initiated exclusive lock activity past the point of return\nfrom rbd_dev_image_unlock() which unlocks the lock if it happens to be\nheld. This unlock is assumed to be final and lock_dwork (as well as\nall other exclusive lock tasks, really) isn\u0027t expected to get queued\nagain. However, lock_dwork is canceled only in cancel_tasks_sync()\n(i.e. later in the unmap sequence) and on top of that the cancellation\ncan get in effect nullified by maybe_kick_acquire(). This may result\nin rbd_acquire_lock() executing after rbd_dev_device_release() and\nrbd_dev_image_release() run and free and/or reset a bunch of things.\nOne of the possible failure modes then is a violated\n\n rbd_assert(rbd_image_format_valid(rbd_dev-\u003eimage_format));\n\nin rbd_dev_header_info() which is called via rbd_dev_refresh() from\nrbd_post_acquire_action().\n\nRedo exclusive lock task draining to provide saner semantics and try\nto meet the assumptions around rbd_dev_image_unlock()."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-64112",
"lastModified": "2026-07-20T15:17:09.910",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 7.8,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 1.8,
"impactScore": 5.9,
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
},
"published": "2026-07-19T16:17:52.567",
"references": [
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3427d7ae38337066ce88b68302e285d344ab756b"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9400efc76b42c751211974a25c91d2c19c65b01b"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9dcd4f5c99b491c37be90b0bd9988db48225fb75"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9fc75b71fdd38465c76c6f6a884cdd4ae3c72d90"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"vulnStatus": "Received"
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…