lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:22:50 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
Subject: CVE-2024-38306: btrfs: protect folio::private when attaching extent buffer folios


In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

btrfs: protect folio::private when attaching extent buffer folios

Since v6.8 there are rare kernel crashes reported by various people,
the common factor is bad page status error messages like this:

  BUG: Bad page state in process kswapd0  pfn:d6e840
  page: refcount:0 mapcount:0 mapping:000000007512f4f2 index:0x2796c2c7c
  aops:btree_aops ino:1
  flags: 0x17ffffe0000008(uptodate|node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x3fffff)
  page_type: 0xffffffff()
  raw: 0017ffffe0000008 dead000000000100 dead000000000122 ffff88826d0be4c0
  raw: 00000002796c2c7c 0000000000000000 00000000ffffffff 0000000000000000
  page dumped because: non-NULL mapping

Commit 09e6cef19c9f ("btrfs: refactor alloc_extent_buffer() to
allocate-then-attach method") changes the sequence when allocating a new
extent buffer.

Previously we always called grab_extent_buffer() under
mapping->i_private_lock, to ensure the safety on modification on
folio::private (which is a pointer to extent buffer for regular

This can lead to the following race:

Thread A is trying to allocate an extent buffer at bytenr X, with 4
4K pages, meanwhile thread B is trying to release the page at X + 4K
(the second page of the extent buffer at X).

           Thread A                |                 Thread B
                                   | btree_release_folio()
				   | | This is for the page at X + 4K,
				   | | Not page X.
				   | |
alloc_extent_buffer()              | |- release_extent_buffer()
|- filemap_add_folio() for the     | |  |- atomic_dec_and_test(eb->refs)
|  page at bytenr X (the first     | |  |
|  page).                          | |  |
|  Which returned -EEXIST.         | |  |
|                                  | |  |
|- filemap_lock_folio()            | |  |
|  Returned the first page locked. | |  |
|                                  | |  |
|- grab_extent_buffer()            | |  |
|  |- atomic_inc_not_zero()        | |  |
|  |  Returned false               | |  |
|  |- folio_detach_private()       | |  |- folio_detach_private() for X
|     |- folio_test_private()      | |     |- folio_test_private()
      |  Returned true             | |     |  Returned true
      |- folio_put()               |       |- folio_put()

Now there are two puts on the same folio at folio X, leading to refcount
underflow of the folio X, and eventually causing the BUG_ON() on the

The condition is not that easy to hit:

- The release must be triggered for the middle page of an eb
  If the release is on the same first page of an eb, page lock would kick
  in and prevent the race.

- folio_detach_private() has a very small race window
  It's only between folio_test_private() and folio_clear_private().

That's exactly when mapping->i_private_lock is used to prevent such race,
and commit 09e6cef19c9f ("btrfs: refactor alloc_extent_buffer() to
allocate-then-attach method") screwed that up.

At that time, I thought the page lock would kick in as
filemap_release_folio() also requires the page to be locked, but forgot
the filemap_release_folio() only locks one page, not all pages of an
extent buffer.

Move all the code requiring i_private_lock into
attach_eb_folio_to_filemap(), so that everything is done with proper
lock protection.

Furthermore to prevent future problems, add an extra
lockdep_assert_locked() to ensure we're holding the proper lock.

To reproducer that is able to hit the race (takes a few minutes with
instrumented code inserting delays to alloc_extent_buffer()):

  drop_caches () {
	  while(true); do
		  echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
		  echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory

  run_tar () {
	  while(true); do
		  for x in `seq 1 80` ; do
			  tar cf /dev/zero /mnt > /dev/null &

  mkfs.btrfs -f -d single -m single /dev/vda
  mount -o noatime /dev/vda /mnt
  # create 200,000 files, 1K each
  ./simoop -n 200000 -E -f 1k /mnt
  drop_caches &

The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2024-38306 to this issue.

Affected and fixed versions

	Issue introduced in 6.8 with commit 09e6cef19c9f and fixed in 6.9.5 with commit 952f048eb901
	Issue introduced in 6.8 with commit 09e6cef19c9f and fixed in 6.10-rc3 with commit f3a5367c679d

Please see for a full list of currently supported
kernel versions by the kernel community.

Unaffected versions might change over time as fixes are backported to
older supported kernel versions.  The official CVE entry at
will be updated if fixes are backported, please check that for the most
up to date information about this issue.

Affected files

The file(s) affected by this issue are:


The Linux kernel CVE team recommends that you update to the latest
stable kernel version for this, and many other bugfixes.  Individual
changes are never tested alone, but rather are part of a larger kernel
release.  Cherry-picking individual commits is not recommended or
supported by the Linux kernel community at all.  If however, updating to
the latest release is impossible, the individual changes to resolve this
issue can be found at these commits:

Powered by blists - more mailing lists