Race Condition Affecting kernel-uek-devel package, versions <0:5.15.0-303.171.5.2.el9uek


Severity

Recommended
high

Based on Oracle Linux security rating.

Threat Intelligence

EPSS
0.04% (6th percentile)

Do your applications use this vulnerable package?

In a few clicks we can analyze your entire application and see what components are vulnerable in your application, and suggest you quick fixes.

Test your applications

Snyk Learn

Learn about Race Condition vulnerabilities in an interactive lesson.

Start learning
  • Snyk IDSNYK-ORACLE9-KERNELUEKDEVEL-8529220
  • published19 Dec 2024
  • disclosed21 Oct 2024

Introduced: 21 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-47679  (opens in a new tab)
CWE-362  (opens in a new tab)

How to fix?

Upgrade Oracle:9 kernel-uek-devel to version 0:5.15.0-303.171.5.2.el9uek or higher.
This issue was patched in ELSA-2024-12887.

NVD Description

Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream kernel-uek-devel package and not the kernel-uek-devel package as distributed by Oracle. See How to fix? for Oracle:9 relevant fixed versions and status.

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

vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput()

Hi, all

Recently I noticed a bug1 in btrfs, after digged it into and I believe it'a race in vfs.

Let's assume there's a inode (ie ino 261) with i_count 1 is called by iput(), and there's a concurrent thread calling generic_shutdown_super().

cpu0: cpu1: iput() // i_count is 1 ->spin_lock(inode) ->dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() generic_shutdown_super() ->__inode_add_lru() ->evict_inodes() // cause some reason[2] ->if (atomic_read(inode->i_count)) continue; // return before // inode 261 passed the above check // list_lru_add_obj() // and then schedule out ->spin_unlock() // note here: the inode 261 // was still at sb list and hash list, // and I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE was not been set

btrfs_iget() // after some function calls ->find_inode() // found the above inode 261 ->spin_lock(inode) // check I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE // and passed ->__iget() ->spin_unlock(inode) // schedule back ->spin_lock(inode) // check (I_NEW|I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE) flags, // passed and set I_FREEING iput() ->spin_unlock(inode) ->spin_lock(inode) ->evict() // dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() ->spin_unlock() ->evict()

Now, we have two threads simultaneously evicting the same inode, which may trigger the BUG(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR) statement both within clear_inode() and iput().

To fix the bug, recheck the inode->i_count after holding i_lock. Because in the most scenarios, the first check is valid, and the overhead of spin_lock() can be reduced.

If there is any misunderstanding, please let me know, thanks.

[2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable() return false when I reproduced the bug.

CVSS Scores

version 3.1