imPC@ndo IT

Tracker / CVE-2025-37871

CVE-2025-37871

High 7.5

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: decrease sc_count directly if fail to queue dl_recall A deadlock warning occurred when invoking nfs4_put_stid following a failed dl_recall queue operation: T1 T2 nfs4_laundromat nfs4_get_client_reaplist nfs4_anylock_blockers __break_lease spin_lock // ctx->flc_lock spin_lock // clp->cl_lock nfs4_lockowner_has_blockers locks_owner_has_blockers spin_lock // flctx->flc_lock nfsd_break_deleg_cb nfsd_break_one_deleg nfs4_put_stid refcount_dec_and_lock spin_lock // clp->cl_lock When a file is opened, an nfs4_delegation is allocated with sc_count initialized to 1, and the file_lease holds a reference to the delegation. The file_lease is then associated with the file through kernel_setlease. The disassociation is performed in nfsd4_delegreturn via the following call chain: nfsd4_delegreturn --> destroy_delegation --> destroy_unhashed_deleg --> nfs4_unlock_deleg_lease --> kernel_setlease --> generic_delete_lease The corresponding sc_count reference will be released after this disassociation. Since nfsd_break_one_deleg executes while holding the flc_lock, the disassociation process becomes blocked when attempting to acquire flc_lock in generic_delete_lease. This means: 1) sc_count in nfsd_break_one_deleg will not be decremented to 0; 2) The nfs4_put_stid called by nfsd_break_one_deleg will not attempt to acquire cl_lock; 3) Consequently, no deadlock condition is created. Given that sc_count in nfsd_break_one_deleg remains non-zero, we can safely perform refcount_dec on sc_count directly. This approach effectively avoids triggering deadlock warnings.

Affected products and versions

debian debian_linux
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel · 6.12.23 → 6.12.25
linux linux_kernel · 6.13.11 → 6.14
linux linux_kernel · 6.14.2 → 6.14.4

Analysis

This page is not indexable yet.Until it carries original analysis — what it actually exposes, how to check in two minutes whether a system was touched, what to do if it was — the page stays noindex. The database decides that, not the template.

References