In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() races As far as I can tell, these calls of list_del_init() on bg_list cannot run concurrently with btrfs_mark_bg_unused() or btrfs_mark_bg_to_reclaim(), as they are in transaction error paths and situations where the block group is readonly. However, if there is any chance at all of racing with mark_bg_unused(), or a different future user of bg_list, better to be safe than sorry. Otherwise we risk the following interleaving (bg_list refcount in parens) T1 (some random op) T2 (btrfs_mark_bg_unused) !list_empty(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_move_tail (1) btrfs_put_block_group (0) btrfs_delete_unused_bgs bg = list_first_entry list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); btrfs_put_block_group(bg); (-1) Ultimately, this results in a broken ref count that hits zero one deref early and the real final deref underflows the refcount, result...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() races As far as I can tell, these calls of list_del_init() on bg_list cannot run concurrently with btrfs_mark_bg_unused() or btrfs_mark_bg_to_reclaim(), as they are in transaction error paths and situations where the block group is readonly. However, if there is any chance at all of racing with mark_bg_unused(), or a different future user of bg_list, better to be safe than sorry. Otherwise we risk the following interleaving (bg_list refcount in parens) T1 (some random op) T2 (btrfs_mark_bg_unused) !list_empty(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_move_tail (1) btrfs_put_block_group (0) btrfs_delete_unused_bgs bg = list_first_entry list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); btrfs_put_block_group(bg); (-1) Ultimately, this results in a broken ref count that hits zero one deref early and the real final deref underflows the refcount, result...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() races As far as I can tell, these calls of list_del_init() on bg_list cannot run concurrently with btrfs_mark_bg_unused() or btrfs_mark_bg_to_reclaim(), as they are in transaction error paths and situations where the block group is readonly. However, if there is any chance at all of racing with mark_bg_unused(), or a different future user of bg_list, better to be safe than sorry. Otherwise we risk the following interleaving (bg_list refcount in parens) T1 (some random op) T2 (btrfs_mark_bg_unused) !list_empty(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_move_tail (1) btrfs_put_block_group (0) btrfs_delete_unused_bgs bg = list_first_entry

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: harden block_group::bg_list against list_del() races As far as I can tell, these calls of list_del_init() on bg_list cannot run concurrently with btrfs_mark_bg_unused() or btrfs_mark_bg_to_reclaim(), as they are in transaction error paths and situations where the block group is readonly. However, if there is any chance at all of racing with mark_bg_unused(), or a different future user of bg_list, better to be safe than sorry. Otherwise we risk the following interleaving (bg_list refcount in parens) T1 (some random op) T2 (btrfs_mark_bg_unused) !list_empty(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_del_init(&bg->bg_list); (1) list_move_tail (1) btrfs_put_block_group (0) btrfs_delete_unused_bgs bg = list_first_entry ...

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

ELSA-2025-20530: Unbreakable Enterprise kernel security update (IMPORTANT)

ELSA-2025-20480: Unbreakable Enterprise kernel security update (IMPORTANT)