<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-09-28T16:51:03.036510+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-22115</id>
    <title>CVE-2025-22115 — btrfs: fix block group refcount race in btrfs_create_pending_block_groups()</title>
    <updated>2026-09-28T16:51:03.053970+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>btrfs: fix block group refcount race in btrfs_create_pending_block_groups()</p>
<p>Block group creation is done in two phases, which results in a slightly
unintuitive property: a block group can be allocated/deallocated from
after btrfs_make_block_group() adds it to the space_info with
btrfs_add_bg_to_space_info(), but before creation is completely completed
in btrfs_create_pending_block_groups(). As a result, it is possible for a
block group to go unused and have 'btrfs_mark_bg_unused' called on it
concurrently with 'btrfs_create_pending_block_groups'. This causes a
number of issues, which were fixed with the block group flag
'BLOCK_GROUP_FLAG_NEW'.</p>
<p>However, this fix is not quite complete. Since it does not use the
unused_bg_lock, it is possible for the following race to occur:</p>
<p>btrfs_create_pending_block_groups            btrfs_mark_bg_unused
                                           if list_empty // false
        list_del_init
        clear_bit
                                           else if (test_bit) // true
                                                list_move_tail</p>
<p>And we get into the exact same broken ref count and invalid new_bgs
state for transaction cleanup that BLOCK_GROUP_FLAG_NEW was designed to
prevent.</p>
<p>The broken refcount aspect will result in a warning like:</p>
<p>[1272.943527] refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free.
  [1272.943967] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 61 at lib/refcount.c:28 refcount_warn…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-22115"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
