BlackTreeIndependent security intelligenceLinux · Linux
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Canonical’s release and source-package findings are shown separately from local repository availability.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Ubuntu release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-aws | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-azure | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-azure-nvidia | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-gcp | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-gke | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-gkeop | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-ibm | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-lowlatency | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-nvidia | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-nvidia-lowlatency | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-oem-6.11 | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-oracle | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-raspi | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-realtime | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-riscv | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-xilinx | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch availableIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput() Hi, all Recently I noticed a bug[1] in btrfs, after digged it into and I believe it'a race in vfs. Let's assume there's a inode (ie ino 261) with i_count 1 is called by iput(), and there's a concurrent thread calling generic_shutdown_super(). cpu0: cpu1: iput() // i_count is 1 ->spin_lock(inode) ->dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() generic_shutdown_super() ->__inode_add_lru() ->evict_inodes() // cause some reason[2] ->if (atomic_read(inode->i_count)) continue; // return before // inode 261 passed the above check // list_lru_add_obj() // and then schedule out ->spin_unlock() // note here: the inode 261 // was still at sb list and hash list, // and I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE was not been set btrfs_iget() // after some function calls ->find_inode() // found the above inode 261 ->spin_lock(inode) // check I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE // and passed ->__iget() ->spin_unlock(inode) // schedule back ->spin_lock(inode) // check (I_NEW|I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE) flags, // passed and set I_FREEING iput() ->spin_unlock(inode) ->spin_lock(inode) ->evict() // dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() ->spin_unlock() ->evict() Now, we have two threads simultaneously evicting the same inode, which may trigger the BUG(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR) statement both within clear_inode() and iput(). To fix the bug, recheck the inode->i_count after holding i_lock. Because in the most scenarios, the first check is valid, and the overhead of spin_lock() can be reduced. If there is any misunderstanding, please let me know, thanks. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/000000000000eabe1d0619c48986@google.com/ [2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable() return false when I reproduced the bug.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput() Hi, all Recently I noticed a bug[1] in btrfs, after digged it into and I believe it'a race in vfs. Let's assume there's a inode (ie ino 261) with i_count 1 is called by iput(), and there's a concurrent thread calling generic_shutdown_super(). cpu0: cpu1: iput() // i_count is 1 ->spin_lock(inode) ->dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() generic_shutdown_super() ->__inode_add_lru() ->evict_inodes() // cause some reason[2] ->if (atomic_read(inode->i_count)) continue; // return before // inode 261 passed the above check // list_lru_add_obj() // and then schedule out ->spin_unlock() // note here: the inode 261 // was still at sb list and hash list, // and I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE was not been set btrfs_iget() // after some function calls ->find_inode() // found the above inode 261 ->spin_lock(inode) // check I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE // and passed ->__iget() ->spin_unlock(inode) // schedule back ->spin_lock(inode) // check (I_NEW|I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE) flags, // passed and set I_FREEING iput() ->spin_unlock(inode) ->spin_lock(inode) ->evict() // dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() ->spin_unlock() ->evict() Now, we have two threads simultaneously evicting the same inode, which may trigger the BUG(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR) statement both within clear_inode() and iput(). To fix the bug, recheck the inode->i_count after holding i_lock. Because in the most scenarios, the first check is valid, and the overhead of spin_lock() can be reduced. If there is any misunderstanding, please let me know, thanks. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/000000000000eabe1d0619c48986@google.com/ [2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable() return false when I reproduced the bug.
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput() Hi, all Recently I noticed a bug[1] in btrfs, after digged it into and I believe it'a race in vfs. Let's assume there's a inode (ie ino 261) with i_count 1 is called by iput(), and there's a concurrent thread calling generic_shutdown_super(). cpu0: cpu1: iput() // i_count is 1 ->spin_lock(inode) ->dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() generic_shutdown_super() ->__inode_add_lru() ->evict_inodes() // cause some reason[2] ->if (atomic_read(inode->i_count)) continue; // return before // inode 261 passed the above check // list_lru_add_obj() // and then schedule out ->spin_unlock() // note here: the inode 261 // was still at sb list and hash list, // and I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE was not been set btrfs_iget() // after some function calls ->find_inode() // found the above inode 261 ->spin_lock(inode) // check I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE // and passed ->__iget() ->spin_unlock(inode) // schedule back ->spin_lock(inode) // check (I_NEW|I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE) flags, // passed and set I_FREEING iput() ->spin_unlock(inode) ->spin_lock(inode) ->evict() // dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() ->spin_unlock() ->evict() Now, we have two threads simultaneously evicting the same inode, which may trigger the BUG(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR) statement both within clear_inode() and iput(). To fix the bug, recheck the inode->i_count after holding i_lock. Because in the most scenarios, the first check is valid, and the overhead of spin_lock() can be reduced. If there is any misunderstanding, please let me know, thanks. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/000000000000eabe1d0619c48986@google.com/ [2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable() return false when I reproduced the bug.
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-362: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition'). The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 21 Oct 2024 · Last source change 5 Aug 2026, 11:39 UTC · CWE-362 · Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.