In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:
 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started
 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
  *** DEADLOCK ***
  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ?
---truncated---
                
            Metrics
Affected Vendors & Products
References
        History
                    Wed, 01 Oct 2025 20:15:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added | 
|---|---|---|
| Metrics | 
        
        ssvc
         
  | 
Mon, 03 Feb 2025 15:45:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added | 
|---|---|---|
| First Time appeared | 
        
        Linux
         Linux linux Kernel  | 
|
| Weaknesses | CWE-667 | |
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* | |
| Vendors & Products | 
        
        Linux
         Linux linux Kernel  | 
Tue, 14 Jan 2025 08:45:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added | 
|---|---|---|
| References | 
         | |
| Metrics | 
        
        
        threat_severity
         
  | 
    
        
        cvssV3_1
         
 
  | 
Sat, 11 Jan 2025 12:30:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added | 
|---|---|---|
| Description | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep: BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250 but task is already holding lock: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem); lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 1 lock held by btrfs/2326: #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80 __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0 ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0 ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250 ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110 ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100 down_read+0x8e/0x440 ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250 ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10 ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70 ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40 btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250 ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00 ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0 ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70 ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10 ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300 ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0 btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0 ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10 ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0 ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270 ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10 ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20 btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80 read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0 btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0 read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0 read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0 ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10 btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720 ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10 ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100 ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30 ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70 ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300 btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820 ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10 ? down_read+0x194/0x440 ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10 ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70 ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40 btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250 ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10 scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0 ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10 submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0 ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710 ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10 scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580 scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440 ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710 ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10 ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70 ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40 scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0 scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70 ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0 ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10 ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170 ? __up_read+0x189/0x700 ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300 ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0 btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0 ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250 ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10 btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00 ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0 ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10 ? ---truncated--- | |
| Title | btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it | |
| References | 
         | 
Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: Linux
Published: 2025-01-11T12:25:16.981Z
Updated: 2025-10-01T19:57:22.119Z
Reserved: 2025-01-09T09:51:32.472Z
Link: CVE-2024-48875
Updated: 2025-10-01T15:52:44.261Z
Status : Modified
Published: 2025-01-11T13:15:22.933
Modified: 2025-10-01T20:17:15.937
Link: CVE-2024-48875