GHSA-559G-J59R-PXG6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-07-20 15:32
VLAI
Details

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().

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-64112"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-19T16:17:52Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "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": "GHSA-559g-j59r-pxg6",
  "modified": "2026-07-20T15:32:00Z",
  "published": "2026-07-19T18:31:52Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-64112"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3427d7ae38337066ce88b68302e285d344ab756b"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9400efc76b42c751211974a25c91d2c19c65b01b"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9dcd4f5c99b491c37be90b0bd9988db48225fb75"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9fc75b71fdd38465c76c6f6a884cdd4ae3c72d90"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

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…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…