Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: fix block group...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: fix block group refcount race in btrfs_create_pending_block_groups()
Block group creation is done in two phases, which results in a slightly
unintuitive property: a block group can be allocated/deallocated from
after btrfs_make_block_group() adds it to the space_info with
btrfs_add_bg_to_space_info(), but before creation is completely completed
in btrfs_create_pending_block_groups(). As a result, it is possible for a
block group to go unused and have 'btrfs_mark_bg_unused' called on it
concurrently with 'btrfs_create_pending_block_groups'. This causes a
number of issues, which were fixed with the block group flag
'BLOCK_GROUP_FLAG_NEW'.
However, this fix is not quite complete. Since it does not use the
unused_bg_lock, it is possible for the following race to occur:
btrfs_create_pending_block_groups btrfs_mark_bg_unused
if list_empty // false
list_del_init
clear_bit
else if (test_bit) // true
list_move_tail
And we get into the exact same broken ref count and invalid new_bgs
state for transaction cleanup that BLOCK_GROUP_FLAG_NEW was designed to
prevent.
The broken refcount aspect will result in a warning like:
[1272.943527] refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free.
[1272.943967] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 61 at lib/refcount.c:28 refcount_warn_saturate+0xba/0x110
[1272.944731] Modules linked in: btrfs virtio_net xor zstd_compress raid6_pq null_blk [last unloaded: btrfs]
[1272.945550] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 61 Comm: kworker/u32:1 Kdump: loaded Tainted: G W 6.14.0-rc5+ #108
[1272.946368] Tainted: [W]=WARN
[1272.946585] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Arch Linux 1.16.3-1-1 04/01/2014
[1272.947273] Workqueue: btrfs_discard btrfs_discard_workfn [btrfs]
[1272.947788] RIP: 0010:refcount_warn_saturate+0xba/0x110
[1272.949532] RSP: 0018:ffffbf1200247df0 EFLAGS: 00010282
[1272.949901] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffa14b00e3f800 RCX: 0000000000000000
[1272.950437] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffbf1200247c78 RDI: 00000000ffffdfff
[1272.950986] RBP: ffffa14b00dc2860 R08: 00000000ffffdfff R09: ffffffff90526268
[1272.951512] R10: ffffffff904762c0 R11: 0000000063666572 R12: ffffa14b00dc28c0
[1272.952024] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffffa14b00dc2868 R15: 000001285dcd12c0
[1272.952850] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffa14d33c40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[1272.953458] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[1272.953931] CR2: 00007f838cbda000 CR3: 000000010104e000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
[1272.954474] Call Trace:
[1272.954655]
[1272.954812] ? refcount_warn_saturate+0xba/0x110
[1272.955173] ? __warn.cold+0x93/0xd7
[1272.955487] ? refcount_warn_saturate+0xba/0x110
[1272.955816] ? report_bug+0xe7/0x120
[1272.956103] ? handle_bug+0x53/0x90
[1272.956424] ? exc_invalid_op+0x13/0x60
[1272.956700] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20
[1272.957011] ? refcount_warn_saturate+0xba/0x110
[1272.957399] btrfs_discard_cancel_work.cold+0x26/0x2b [btrfs]
[1272.957853] btrfs_put_block_group.cold+0x5d/0x8e [btrfs]
[1272.958289] btrfs_discard_workfn+0x194/0x380 [btrfs]
[1272.958729] process_one_work+0x130/0x290
[1272.959026] worker_thread+0x2ea/0x420
[1272.959335] ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
[1272.959644] kthread+0xd7/0x1c0
[1272.959872] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[1272.960172] ret_from_fork+0x30/0x50
[1272.960474] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[1272.960745] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
[1272.961035]
[1272.961238] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
Though we have seen them in the async discard workfn as well. It is
most likely to happen after a relocation finishes which cancels discard,
tears down the block group, etc.
Fix this fully by taking the lock arou
---truncated---
Impact
Multiple concurrent operations access a shared resource without proper synchronization, producing unpredictable results depending on timing. Typical impact: TOCTOU exploits, data corruption, or privilege escalation.
CVE-2025-22115 has a CVSS score of 4.7 (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-2025-22115? CVE-2025-22115 is a medium-severity race condition vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet. Multiple concurrent operations access a shared resource without proper synchronization, producing unpredictable results depending on timing.
- How severe is CVE-2025-22115? CVE-2025-22115 has a CVSS score of 4.7 (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-2025-22115? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-22115 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-22115 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-22115 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-2025-22115 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.