Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: avoid journaling sb...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: avoid journaling sb update on error if journal is destroying
Presently we always BUG_ON if trying to start a transaction on a journal marked
with JBD2_UNMOUNT, since this should never happen. However, while ltp running
stress tests, it was observed that in case of some error handling paths, it is
possible for update_super_work to start a transaction after the journal is
destroyed eg:
(umount)
ext4_kill_sb
kill_block_super
generic_shutdown_super
sync_filesystem /* commits all txns /
evict_inodes
/ might start a new txn /
ext4_put_super
flush_work(&sbi->s_sb_upd_work) / flush the workqueue */
jbd2_journal_destroy
journal_kill_thread
journal->j_flags |= JBD2_UNMOUNT;
jbd2_journal_commit_transaction
jbd2_journal_get_descriptor_buffer
jbd2_journal_bmap
ext4_journal_bmap
ext4_map_blocks
...
ext4_inode_error
ext4_handle_error
schedule_work(&sbi->s_sb_upd_work)
/* work queue kicks in */
update_super_work
jbd2_journal_start
start_this_handle
BUG_ON(journal->j_flags &
JBD2_UNMOUNT)
Hence, introduce a new mount flag to indicate journal is destroying and only do
a journaled (and deferred) update of sb if this flag is not set. Otherwise, just
fallback to an un-journaled commit.
Further, in the journal destroy path, we have the following sequence:
- Set mount flag indicating journal is destroying
- force a commit and wait for it
- flush pending sb updates
This sequence is important as it ensures that, after this point, there is no sb
update that might be journaled so it is safe to update the sb outside the
journal. (To avoid race discussed in 2d01ddc86606)
Also, we don't need a similar check in ext4_grp_locked_error since it is only
called from mballoc and AFAICT it would be always valid to schedule work here.
Impact
CVE-2025-22113 has a CVSS score of 5.5 (Medium). The vector is requires local access, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. No fixed version is listed yet, so configuration controls and monitoring matter more in the interim.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2025-22113? CVE-2025-22113 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2025-22113? CVE-2025-22113 has a CVSS score of 5.5 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2025-22113? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-22113 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-22113 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-22113 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2025-22113 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.