Skip to content

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been...

Moderate severity Unreviewed Published Feb 27, 2025 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Oct 23, 2025

Package

No package listedSuggest a package

Affected versions

Unknown

Patched versions

Unknown

Description

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

btrfs: do proper folio cleanup when run_delalloc_nocow() failed

[BUG]
With CONFIG_DEBUG_VM set, test case generic/476 has some chance to crash
with the following VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO():

BTRFS error (device dm-3): cow_file_range failed, start 1146880 end 1253375 len 106496 ret -28
BTRFS error (device dm-3): run_delalloc_nocow failed, start 1146880 end 1253375 len 106496 ret -28
page: refcount:4 mapcount:0 mapping:00000000592787cc index:0x12 pfn:0x10664
aops:btrfs_aops [btrfs] ino:101 dentry name(?):"f1774"
flags: 0x2fffff80004028(uptodate|lru|private|node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0xfffff)
page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio))
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2992!
Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] SMP
CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 3943513 Comm: kworker/u24:15 Tainted: G OE 6.12.0-rc7-custom+ #87
Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE
Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022
Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs]
pc : folio_clear_dirty_for_io+0x128/0x258
lr : folio_clear_dirty_for_io+0x128/0x258
Call trace:
folio_clear_dirty_for_io+0x128/0x258
btrfs_folio_clamp_clear_dirty+0x80/0xd0 [btrfs]
__process_folios_contig+0x154/0x268 [btrfs]
extent_clear_unlock_delalloc+0x5c/0x80 [btrfs]
run_delalloc_nocow+0x5f8/0x760 [btrfs]
btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0xa8/0x220 [btrfs]
writepage_delalloc+0x230/0x4c8 [btrfs]
extent_writepage+0xb8/0x358 [btrfs]
extent_write_cache_pages+0x21c/0x4e8 [btrfs]
btrfs_writepages+0x94/0x150 [btrfs]
do_writepages+0x74/0x190
filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x88/0xc8
start_delalloc_inodes+0x178/0x3a8 [btrfs]
btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x174/0x280 [btrfs]
shrink_delalloc+0x114/0x280 [btrfs]
flush_space+0x250/0x2f8 [btrfs]
btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x180/0x228 [btrfs]
process_one_work+0x164/0x408
worker_thread+0x25c/0x388
kthread+0x100/0x118
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
Code: 910a8021 a90363f7 a9046bf9 94012379 (d4210000)
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

[CAUSE]
The first two lines of extra debug messages show the problem is caused
by the error handling of run_delalloc_nocow().

E.g. we have the following dirtied range (4K blocksize 4K page size):

0                 16K                  32K
|//////////////////////////////////////|
|  Pre-allocated  |

And the range [0, 16K) has a preallocated extent.

  • Enter run_delalloc_nocow() for range [0, 16K)
    Which found range [0, 16K) is preallocated, can do the proper NOCOW
    write.

  • Enter fallback_to_fow() for range [16K, 32K)
    Since the range [16K, 32K) is not backed by preallocated extent, we
    have to go COW.

  • cow_file_range() failed for range [16K, 32K)
    So cow_file_range() will do the clean up by clearing folio dirty,
    unlock the folios.

    Now the folios in range [16K, 32K) is unlocked.

  • Enter extent_clear_unlock_delalloc() from run_delalloc_nocow()
    Which is called with PAGE_START_WRITEBACK to start page writeback.
    But folios can only be marked writeback when it's properly locked,
    thus this triggered the VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO().

Furthermore there is another hidden but common bug that
run_delalloc_nocow() is not clearing the folio dirty flags in its error
handling path.
This is the common bug shared between run_delalloc_nocow() and
cow_file_range().

[FIX]

  • Clear folio dirty for range [@start, @cur_offset)
    Introduce a helper, cleanup_dirty_folios(), which
    will find and lock the folio in the range, clear the dirty flag and
    start/end the writeback, with the extra handling for the
    @locked_folio.

  • Introduce a helper to clear folio dirty, start and end writeback

  • Introduce a helper to record the last failed COW range end
    This is to trace which range we should skip, to avoid double
    unlocking.

  • Skip the failed COW range for the e
    ---truncated---

References

Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 27, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 27, 2025
Last updated Oct 23, 2025

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(5th percentile)

Weaknesses

Incomplete Cleanup

The product does not properly clean up and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2024-57975

GHSA ID

GHSA-wp4j-4pcv-wwf5

Source code

No known source code

Dependabot alerts are not supported on this advisory because it does not have a package from a supported ecosystem with an affected and fixed version.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.