CVE-2025-38492
CVE Descriptions
netfs: Fix race between cache write completion and ALL_QUEUED being set
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfs: Fix race between cache write completion and ALL_QUEUED being set When netfslib is issuing subrequests, the subrequests start processing immediately and may complete before we reach the end of the issuing function. At the end of the issuing function we set NETFS_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED to indicate to the collector that we aren't going to issue any more subreqs and that it can do the final notifications and cleanup. Now, this isn't a problem if the request is synchronous (NETFS_RREQ_OFFLOAD_COLLECTION is unset) as the result collection will be done in-thread and we're guaranteed an opportunity to run the collector. However, if the request is asynchronous, collection is primarily triggered by the termination of subrequests queuing it on a workqueue. Now, a race can occur here if the app thread sets ALL_QUEUED after the last subrequest terminates. This can happen most easily with the copy2cache code (as used by Ceph) where, in the collection routine of a read request, an asynchronous write request is spawned to copy data to the cache. Folios are added to the write request as they're unlocked, but there may be a delay before ALL_QUEUED is set as the write subrequests may complete before we get there. If all the write subreqs have finished by the ALL_QUEUED point, no further events happen and the collection never happens, leaving the request hanging. Fix this by queuing the collector after setting ALL_QUEUED. This is a bit heavy-handed and it may be sufficient to do it only if there are no extant subreqs. Also add a tracepoint to cross-reference both requests in a copy-to-request operation and add a trace to the netfs_rreq tracepoint to indicate the setting of ALL_QUEUED.CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 4.7 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. High successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.14 To (excluding) 6.15.8
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
